S D 

II 

A47 




Class _„O^L)_ 



\'\'C-j 




FORESTRY 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 



'1,5. Cov.<,,^cc, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 
THIRD SESSION 



ON 

H. R. 15327 

(BY MR. SNELL) 



January 26 and 27, 1921 




WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

52002 1921 



COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. 



House of Representatives. 
GILBERT N. HAUGEN, Iowa, Chairman. 



JAMES c. Mclaughlin, Michigan. 

WILLIAM W. WILSON, Illinois. 
CHARLES B. WARD, New York. 
WILLIAM B. McKINLEY, Illinois. 
ELI.TAH C. HUTCHINSON, New Jersey. 
FRED S. PURNELL, Indiana. 
EDWARD VOIGT, Wisconsin. 
MELVIN O. Mclaughlin, Nebraska. 
CxiRL W. RIDDICK, Montana. 
J. N. TINCHER, Kansas. 
WILLIS J. HULINGS, Pennsylvania. 
J. KUHIO KALANIANAOLE, Hawaii. 



GORDON LEE, Georgia. 

EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, Mississippi. 

THOMAS L. RUBEY, Missouri. 

JAMES YOUNG, Texas. 

HENDERSON M. JACOWAY, Arkansas. 

.lOHN V. LESHER, Penn.sylvania. 

JOHN W. RAINEY, Illinois. 



L. G. HAUGK.f, Clerk. 



LlBfvARY OF CONGRESS 
t^ECEIViD 

DOOUMeNTS E^lVidlON 






Sd /I 

.A 41 



CONTENTS. 



Statement of — Page. 

Hon. B. H. Enell 1 

Col. W. B. Greeley (three statements) 6,34,50 

Alfred Gaskill 12 

E. T. Allen 14 

Gifforcl Pinchot 25 

R. ,S. Kellogg (two statements) 38,42 

Col. H. S. Graves (two statements) 37,46 

E. H. Baker 39 

D. L. Goodwillie 40 

G. W. Sisson 42 

L. F. Kneipp 43 

C. L. Pack 45 

E. M. Parsonage 49 

J. R. Williams, jr 52 

E. A. Sherman 53 

E. E. Carter 55 

P. W. Ayres ,56 

W. L. Hall 56 

in 



FORESTRY 



Committee ox Agriculture, 

House of Representati\te8, 
Wednesday, January 26, 1921. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haiigen 
(chairman) presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee has been called this morning to 
give consideration to H. R. 15327, which provides for cooperation 
between the Federal Government, the States, and owners of timber- 
lands for adequate protection against forest fires, for reforestation of 
denuded lands, and so forth. 

Mr. Snell, we will hear you first this morning. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERTRAND H. SNELL, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

Mr. Snell. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we 
desire to engage your attention this morning in connection with 
H. R. 1532T, commonly referred to as the " Snell forestry bill." 

AVe have a great many people here from every part of the country 
who are much interested in this proposed legislation. They have 
come from long distances and desire to be heard at this time on this 
bill. For that reason I shall not take up much of the time of the 
committee, as I intend to in the near future, on the floor of the 
House, make a more extended explanation of the character, scope, 
and purpose of this legislation. 

I shall hand to the stenographer for record in the liearings a 
partial list of the men here and what they represent : 

l'K()(;l!A.M OF HEAK1X(; I'POX I H K SXKl.I. \\\\.\. 111. 1!. 1 .". .! -J 7 I . 

IntrodiK fori/ stiitevioit. — The sjivat i>uhli<' interest involved and the iieressity 
fur setting up a« soon as jtossihle a national forestry program will l»e discnssed 
by Representative Snell, the introducer of the hill. Mr. Snell will also take 
charge of the hearing and introduce the genllenien who will discuss the vaiious 
sections. 

Sectionfi J and 2. — William B. Greeley, Chief Forester of the Ignited States. 
will discuss the proposed legislation from the viewpoint of the Uiitional service. 

Mr. Alfred Gaskill, State forestei' of New .Jersey, will speak from the view- 
point of the State forestr.v deiiaitment. 

]\Ir. E. T. Allen, representing the Western Forestry Conservation Association 
and the National T^umher Manufacturers' Association, will discuss the proposed 
legislation from the practical view])oint of the owners of timberland and the 
manufacturers of lumber. 

F^efCtion 3. — Will be discussed by K. S. Kellogg, of New Vork. chaii'man of the 
National P^orestry Program Committee. 

Section 5.- — Will be discussed by E. W. McCuUough. reiiresenting the .Associa- 
tion of Wood Using Industries. 

Section 6. — Will be discussed by E. E. Carter, assistant forester in the United 
States Forest Service. 

1 



2 FORESTRY. 

Sections 7 and 8. — Will be discussed by Willi;nii L. Hall, of Chicago, formerly 
assistant forester in charge of acquisition of forest lands under the Weeks's law, 
and Philip W. Ayres, forester of the Society for the Protection of New Hamp- 
shire Forests. 

Section 9. — Will be discussed by E. A. Sherman, associate forester of the 
United States Forest Service. 

Sections 10 tn 12. — Will be discussed by L. F. Kneipp, assistant forester in 
the United States Forest Service. 

Tlie interests of the general public in the proposed legislation will l)e pre- 
sented by : 

Elbert H. Baker, publisher of the Cleveland (Ohio) Plain Dealer and chair- 
man of the committee on forest resources of the American Newspaper Pul)lishers' 
Association. 

D. L. Goodwillie, of Chicago. 

Charles Lathrop Pack, pi*esident of the American Forestry Association. 

J. R;iudall Williams, chairman of the forestry committee of the National 
Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association. 

Col. Henry S. Graves, former Chief Forester of the United States. 

George W. Sisson, jr., of Potsdam, N. Y., president, American Paper and Pulp 
Association. 

In order to further facilitate the time of the committee, we have 
divided up our witnesses and assigned to each one a certain section 
of the bill, and each man, as far as possible, will confine himself to 
that particular section to wdiich he is addressing himself. 

It also might be well for me at this point to enumerate to the com- 
mittee the main provisions of the bill that will be amplified later by 
the gentlemen appearing in the interests of the legislation. 

The first two sections are of chief importance at this time. In the 
main they propose a method of Federal cooperation with the States 
and individual landow'ners which, in my judgment, constitute the 
most effective and constitutional method of getting into operation 
a com2)rehensive national forestry policy which outlines Federal, 
State, and private responsibility in the protection and management 
of all forest land. 

The third directs a sur\'ey of forest resources and re<iuireraents 
necessary at an early stage to insure that steps taken luider the pro- 
visions of this bill are neither inadequate nor superfluous. 

The fourth is an appropriation section covering the foregoing 
three .sections, and is of less importance at this time than that you 
should mark out and approve of some purpose and policy. 

The fifth deals -with forest research and investigations in wood 
utilization, also .study of forest taxation. 

The sixtli with reforestation of denuded lands in national forests. 

Tile seventh and eighth with purchasing additional lands for na- 
tional forests. 

The ninth, the acquisition of similar lands by exchange. 

The remaining sections cover classifications and inclusion in the 
national forests of permanent forest lands now in other forms of 
Government ownership. 

This is a short synopsis of the whole bill, which is based on the 
general assumption and belief that it is now possible to have a mu- 
tual cooperative arrangement between Federal, State, and individual 
landowners governing future forest management. 

Speaking for myself, I want to say to the committee that I was 
engaged in lumbering and timberland business for 20 years and 
have, as I think, a personal and practical knowledge of this industry 
as far as Pennsvlvania, New York, and New England are concerned, 



FORESTRY. * 3 

and a general understanding of existing conditions in this industry 
throughout the whole countrj^ 

I will say for the further benefit of the committee that at the 
present time I do not oAvn one acre of timberland, nor am I in any 
way interested financially in any company or corporation owning 
or operating in timberlands, and that my only interest in this pro- 
posed legislation is that of a citizen who is familiar with existing 
conditions and knows the actual need at the present time of legisla- 
tion of this character. I can not better state to you the })urpose of 
this legislation than to read the preamble of the bill : 

To provide throiiirh fooperiition between the Fecler;il Government, the States, 
and owners of tlniherlnnds, for adequate protection airainst forest tires, for 
reforestation of denuded lands, for obtaining essential information in regard 
to timber and tiniberlaiMls, f(»r extension of tlie national forests, and for other 
purposes, all essential to continuous forest production on lands chiefly suitable 
therefor. 

For more than 20 years the people of this country have been realiz- 
ing that one of our greatest sources of national wealth — the Nation's 
forests — were fast disappearing, but not until the last few years, 
when the beginning of the end appeared in sight, have we entirely 
waked up and all agreed that something definite must be done in the 
way of improved lumbering operations, better forest management 
and reforestation if we were going to perpetuate an adequate timber 
supply for the future needs of the country. 

This is such a large proposition. It so vitally affects such varied 
interests in different parts of the whole country — the landowner, the 
lumber manufacturers, the paper and pulp interests, the newspaper 
interests, the building interests, etc., to say nothing of the large 
number of people who are interested in our forests as public play- 
grounds and camping places- — that for a quarter of a century we have 
argued this proposition among ourselves and have never been able to 
get together on any acceptable common ground until the present 
time. And now for the first time the people most vitally interested 
in this fast-disappearing natural resources, the people who have given 
the matter the most thought, the people who will necessarily be called 
upon to bear a large part of the burden, are united in asking Congress 
to consider this legislation. 

As further evidence of our sincerity in asking for this legislation, 
I want you to know the people who are back of this bill and fully 
indorse its main provisions : The Ignited States Forest Service, nearly 
all State forest departments. National Lumber Manufacturers' Asso- 
ciation, American Paper and Pulp Association, National Wholesale 
Lumber Dealers' Association^ Association of Wood-Using Industries, 
American Forestry Association, and American Newspaper Pub- 
lishers' Association. 

This group comprises landowners, manufacturers, consumers, and 
public forest authorities from every part of the United States. 
This is the first time in history of forest legislation that representa- 
tives of all these groups have gotten together and unanimously 
asked Congress for consideration of a forestry measure. 

The fact of the diversified interests represented in these groups, the 
facts that they are practically united at this time, proves three things 
conclusivly, and that is: First, that this legislation has been thor- 
oughly discussed and considered; second, that it is practical; and 
third, that it can be accomplished at this time. 



4 FORESTRY. 

By this statement I do not mean to say that all parties are abso- 
lutely committed or even satisfied with every provision of this bill, 
but rather that this bill furnishes the basis or framework of legisla- 
tion that is not only absolutely necessary but will be of lasting benefit 
to the people of the whole country. 

With this object in view, I introduced H. R. 15327 for the purpose 
of having the Federal Government define its future policy toward 
one of its greatest natural -i-esources — the forests and their products. 

Mr. Chairman, thus far we as a Nation have been profligate in 
the use of our natural resources, and to-day we are brought face to 
face with the rapid depletion of the forests, and in order to preserve 
them and the industries in this country that are dependent upon 
them, it is high time to establish some fixed policy that will provide 
a continuous supj^ly of timber in the United States. 

The proponents of this legislation simply desire to have the Gov- 
ernment, before it is too late, establish a policy that will insure a 
continuous timber production in our own domain, and not make us 
entirely dependent on foreign countries for this raw material. The 
fire loss alone on timberlands is $25,000,000 per year; and it is cer- 
tain that a large part of this can be avoided by legislation that 
properly regulates and protects private and public domain. 

This is not sectional legislation or class legislation, but something 
that is of vital importance to every section and every industry in the 
United States. It affects the housing situation in the great cities; 
it affects the farmer in the rural sections ; and especially does it . 
affect the taxable assets of the country, which at the present time is 
no small matter. The future cost and supply of lumber and forest 
products is of interest to every civilized community in the United 
States. 

Therefore I am convinced that this sul)ject deserves most careful 
consideration on the part of the committee and is of vital importance 
to the people of the whole country. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the start for some real, constructive 
legislation, and I am sure your committee will give it the attention 
that it is entitled to receive. 

We w^ill first present, Mr. Chairman, a gentleman who will discuss 
the first two sections of the bill. 

The Chairman. Mr. Snell, may I ask how much time is desired? 

Mr. Snell. We had about two hours of real material we desired 
to present to the committee. We have condensed it as carefully as 
possible and divided the sections among different men, and they will 
confine themseh'es to the matter being discussed. 

The Chairman. You would prefer to be heard to-day? 

Mr. Snell. These men come from all over the country, as far west 
as Minneapolis, and they are desirous of getting away and would 
like to be heard during the day. 

Mr. TiNCHER. I do not knoAv much about this subject, but I agree 
with Mr. Snell that it is an important one. As I understand, there 
are opponents and proponents here on this bill, and for this morning 
I Avould like to get a general idea of the views of both sides. We 
will only be able to sit during the morning. 

The Chairman. It occurred to me that possibly arrangements 
could be made to have a session this afternoon in order to accommo- 
date some of these gentlemen. 



FORESTRY. 5 

Mr. Snell. If it is possible, we would like to be heard to-day, 
because these men are all business men. 

Mr. TiNCHER. I would like to ask Mr. Snell one question. You 
state that now is the opportune time for this legislation. As a Mem- 
ber of the House, holding a position of some consequence with refer- 
ence to the functioning of the House between now and the 4th of 
March, I would like your opinion as to whether we will have much 
chance to enact general legislation of this character during this 
session of Congress ? 

Mr. Snell. I did not mean by that statement that I expected this 
legislation to be enacted during the present session of Congress. As 
the gentleman well knows, there will probably not be much general 
legislation between now and the 4th of March ; but it is very impor- 
tant we get this matter started and get the educational work that 
is necessary to be done in connection with the legislation before the 
country. 

Mr. Tincher. As I understand it, this committee will have per- 
haps more new members than any committee of the House after the 
4th of March. Of course, the hearings will be available. 

Mr, ]\IcLaughlin of Michigan. I would suggest to the gentlemen 
from the outside who would be inconvenienced by having to remain, 
that they be given the first opportunity and then we take this matter 
up again at some other time. The gentleman talks about this being 
an opportune time ; it is anything but that for this committee. 

Mr. Snell. I appreciate that the hearing happened to be wrongly 
placed so far as this committee is concerned on account of the 
appropriation bill that is on the floor at the present time. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. And other matters which we have 
before the committee demanding our attention ; some very important 
measures. 

Mr. Tincher. One that we have spent almost a year in hearing 
upon. 

The Chairman. Is there anyone present in opposition to the bill 
who desires to be heard this morning? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. Yes, Mr. Chairman ; I would like to be heard after 
the proponents of the bill, and I would suggest, inasmuch as the 
essence of the bill is in the first two or three sections, that after the 
gentlemen have spoken on those sections, I would like very much to 
be heard for 10 minutes, if I may. 

The Chairman. Are there any others ? 

Mr. Williams. I believe we come last in the list; but it is very 
important I should get back to Philadelphia this afternoon by 6 
o'clock. 

The Chairman. Are you here to oppose the bill ? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Snell will control the time as to those who 
favor the bill. Whatever arrangement you make with Mr. Snell will 
be followed out. 

Mr. Snell. Mr. Chairman, we will present first Col. William B. 
Greeley, Chief Forest Service of the United States, who will discuss 
the proposed legislation from the viewpoint of the National Forest 
Service contained in the first few sections. 



6 FORESTKY. 

STATEMENT OF COL. W. E. GSEELEY, CBlEf, FOEEST SEEVICE, 
UNITED STATES BEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. SnelL Col. Greeley, we will be 
pleased to hear from you. 

Col. Geeeley. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to suggest at the outset 
that this is a very fit subject for national legislation. There is 
scarcely any commodity as to which our States are more dependent 
ui^on each other than upon the products of the forests. Our large 
industrial States like New York and Pennsylvania are compelled 
to-day to import from four-fifths to nine-tenths of the forest prod- 
ucts which they use from other States. Our most highly developed 
agricultural section in the Middle West import to-day 97 per cent 
of the lumber and other forest products which it uses from other 
States. The beehive of wood-using industries in the vicinity of 
Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukee would largely have to shut down 
within three or four weeks if the supplies of timber, which they now 
from Southern and Western States, were cut off. In other words, this 
is a national problem. It must be viewed from a national standpoint, 
and the leadership in its solution must be taken by the National 
Government. 

Four-fifths of our forest lands are in private ownership, and not- 
withstanding the utmost possible progress in the extension of pub- 
licity owned forests, which is one of the things we are advocating, 
where public ownership is particularly essential, we must recognize 
that a large proportion of our forests will remain in the ownership 
of private individuals. 

How, then, can the National Goverrnnent most effectively bring 
about the growing of timber on private lands which will always 
form the bulk of our forests; and what will this enterprise cost? 
These are the two questions which I wish to discuss specifically, 
addressing my remarks to the first two sections of the bill. 

The growing of timber can not be left to private initiative alone. 
Our future supply of timber can not be left to the turn of profit or 
loss to the owner of the land under existing economic conditions. 
It is just that "leave-it-alone" course which has led to the timber 
shortage now impending. The public interest must be protected 
through some form of equitable regulation of the use of forest lands, 
to see to it that they are kept at work growing timber. 

The principle embodied in sections 1 and 2 of this bill is analogous 
to that adopted in our national policies for the education of the 
farmers in practical agriculture and for the construction of public 
highways. In each instance plans and standards are worked out by 
the Federal Government ancl financial cooperation extended to the 
States which comply with such plans and standards and carry them 
out effectively. These great movements for extension w^ork in agri- 
culture and the construction of public highways are now being car- 
ried forward by the power of national cooperation. The same prin- 
ciple should be woven into our national forestry policy. Congress 
can not legislate an economic process like the growing of timber into 
being. But Congress can, by initiating a far-sighted program of 
Federal cooperation, directly with the States and through the States 
with the woodland owners of the country, accomplish the results 
sought to a large degree. 



FORESTRY. 7 

Section 1 of the bill thus provides that the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture shall determine and make known the essential things to be done 
in each forest region to keep in continuous production of timber 
such of its lands as are suitable therefor. These essential require- 
ments include the protection forest lands from fire, the disposal of 
debris left in logging, the planting of forest trees, and regulation 
of the cutting of timber or extraction of forest products, where any 
one or all of them are necessary to grow ncAV crops of timber on the 
lands in question. In accordance with the terms of section 2, pre- 
liminary investigations to determine these essential requirements 
may be made, if necessary, at the cost of the Federal Government 
alone. Thereupon the Secretary of Agriculture will invite the co- 
operation of the States concerned, and through the agencies of the 
State the cooperation of its timber owners in putting into effect the 
essential requirements which have been determined upon. Section 
4 of the bill carries a yearly appropriation of $2,000,000, which may 
be drawn upon for such cooperation, with a proviso that not less 
than $1,000,000 shall be expended for the prevention of forest fires. 

Under the terms of sections 1 and 2 the Secretary of Agriculture 
will fix the conditions which he regards as fair and reasonable as 
a basis for his cooperation with any State. And he is authorized to 
withhold cooperation from any State which fails to put in effect the 
requirements for keeping forest lands productive which have been 
found to be essential. 

The Federal Government, as in agricultural extension or the con- 
struction of public highways, would thus assume the technical lead- 
ership of the reforestation movement throughout the country. It 
would correlate and establish the concrete measures necessary to grow 
timber in each group of States having similar forest conditions, 
and it would then offer substantial financial cooperation to the States 
accepting and putting into effect the requirements determined upon 
as necessary. The bill places specific limits upon the extent of the 
financial cooperation that can be extended to any State by providing 
that Federal expenditures must not exceed those of the State itself 
for the same purpose. And it gives a powerful incentive to the State 
to impose upon its forest owners an equitable portion of the cost of 
fire prevention and other reforestation measures by recognizing 
private expenditures for these purposes made in compliance with the 
laAvs of the State in the Federal cooperation. 

The cooperative w^ork done in any State will vary with its forest 
conditions and requirements. In the prairie States and States con- 
taining limited areas of forest land, cooperation would consist chiefly 
in the maintenance of forest nurseries and distribution of trees for 
planting. In other States cooperation should cover technical 
methods of fire prevention, of disposing of debris left in logging, of 
cutting various types of timber, so as to secure a new crop of the 
kind desired, and the like. Assistance should be given to the States 
in educating their forest owners not only through general publica- 
tions but specific advice on the management of individual properties. 

The largest and most important field for cooperation, however, in 
all States containing extensive forest areas is in the prevention of 
forest fires. In this regard, the proposed bill is an expansion of the 
work done by the Forest Service in cooperation with States on the 



8 FORESTRY. 

watersheds of navigable streams since tlie enactment of tlie Weelis 
law in 1911; and our experience in this work ^ives us a basis on 
which to gauge the success of the larger cooperative policy now pro- 
j)osed. 

Thirty-nine States in the Union contain approximately 325,000,000 
acres of timbered and cut-over lands in State and private owner- 
ship, requiring protection from fire. This is the first step^to a con- 
tinuous supply of timber. Out of this amount about 175,000,000 
acres are almost wholly unprotected. We have from ten to twenty- 
five thousand forest fires every year, and we know that they destroy 
the young forest growth on at least eight or ten million acres every 
year, aside from large areas burned over annually of which no 
record can be obtained. These conditions, combined with destruc- 
tive methods of logging, have already devastated 81,000,000 acres 
of forest land so completely that it may well be compared with the 
American Desert; and from eight to ten million acres are being 
added to it every year. 

Effective protection of these 325 million acres of forest land lies 
at the bottom of any national policy of reforestation. Once this 
vast area of land is really protected from forest fires, three- fourths 
of our timber supply problem is solved. 

Since 1911 the Forest Service has cooperated in this work with 
from 10 to 25 States, expending from $40,000 to $125,000 per year 
of Federal funds. During these nine years, and largely as the result 
of Federal cooperation, we have seen State and county expendi- 
tures for the prevention of forest fires increase from about $250,000 
a year the country over to over one million dollars; we have seen 
private expenditures for forest-fire prevention increase six or eight 
fold; we have seen the areas of forest land actually protected in- 
crease from year to year as the result of practical cooperation car- 
ried out in the woods by the Federal Government, the State govern- 
ment, and the private forest owner under the terms of that law. 

The method has been worked out; its success has been amply 
demonstrated ; it remains simply to extend it over all the forest 
lands in the country, of Avhich at the present time over half are 
practically without protection. 

The cost of protecting these forest lands from fire, as reported by 
26 States, averages 2^ cents per acre. A forest protection budget 
for the United States, excluding the Federal holdings, would thus ag- 
gregate $8,125,000 a year. As against that requirement the sums regu- 
larly available aggregate $1,885,000, of which State and county ap- 
propriations represent $1,060,000, private expenditures $700,000, and 
the Federal appropriation but $125,000. 

In other words, about 25 per cent of the necessary task of pro- 
tecting our forest lands from fire is being done in the United States 
to-day. We are short 75 per cent of efficient nation-wide forest fire 
prevention. It is both reasonable and necessary that the National 
Government take the lead in making good this deficit. In view of th& 
vital national interest in an assured supply of timber for the future, 
an expenditure of $1,000,000 a year for the prevention of forest 
fires, or 12 per cent of the total cost, is a ridiculousl}^ small item. 
All of our experience during the last nine years runs to show that the 
expenditure of this additional amount by the National Government 



FORESTRY. 9 

will, through the cooperation which it stimulates on the part of 
States and private owners, go a long way toward the efficient pro- 
tection of our forest lands as a whole. 

The cost of forest protection should be shared by the public and 
the private owner. The owner of forest land has a direct interest in 
the protection of his property, and he should contribute in propor- 
tion to this interest. But the owner can not equitably assume the 
burden of overcoming the fire hazard of the region which is created 
by the entire community. In recognition of the regional and com- 
munity hazard to which forests are subject, and in recognition of its 
own interest in timber for the future, the public should rightfully 
assimie a share of the cost of protecting them. The protection of 
forests from fire must by its very nature be organized on broad, 
systematic lines and hence must be a i^ublicly organized and directed 
function. We are proposing that the Federal Government, then, 
representing the national interest, assume 12 per cent of the cost of 
forest fire prevention, possibly running as high as 25 per cent in 
individual States, leaving the rest to be borne by the State and its 
forest owners. 

The assumption of this cost by the Federal Government does not 
mean relieving either the State or the forest owner from expenditures 
for fire prevention. In every instance the entrance of the Federal 
Government into the protective work of a State with its insistence 
upon a systematic plan of forest protection, and with its stimulus 
to local cooperation, has resulted in an expenditure of larger amounts 
than before both by the State and by the private owner. In every 
instance the Federal Government has insisted that the increased 
protection made possible by its participation be extended to denuded 
and logged-off lands, and to lands bearing small growth, in which 
the owner has little at stake and for whose protection he may have 
no incentive. 

It is just such land, however, upon which we depend as a Nation 
for our future supply of timber, and in providing for its protection 
through our cooperation we are serving the public interest. The 
best proof of the results of Federal cooperation in fire prevention 
is that private forest owners are spending to-day six to eight times 
the amount that they spent for protection before Federal coopera- 
tion began. 

Cooperation in forest-fire prevention is the first and at present by 
far the most important step. But it is not an end in itself. It is a 
means to the reforestation of timber-growing land, and the actual 
production of timber is the real objective. That is clearly stated in 
tlie bill. The National Government should, therefore, under the 
terms of this bill define and recommend to each State every addi- 
tional step essential to reforestation, including methods of cutting 
or extracting forest products. As rapidly as the fire haznrd is 
brought under reasonable control in each region, the additional 
measures necessary to actually put growing trees upon the land 
would, in so far as they are equitable to forest owners, be required 
as a prerequisite for further Federal cooperation 

Mr. TiNCHER (interposing). Do you mean on privately owned 
lands? 



10 I'OnESTRY. 

Col. Greeley. Yes, sir; privately owned lands. These additional 
requirements would follow just as rapidly as the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, who would have the administration of this bill in hand, 
determines that they are necessary to keep the forest lands concerned 
in continuous production, and that they are equitable in view of the 
conditions surrounding the private lands in those States. You will 
understand, gentlemen, that the compulsion brought about undor this 
law would be compulsion by the States. It would be exercised 
directly upon the private owner within the State under the police 
power of the State; it would be a condition set up which the State 
must meet before the State could share in the cooperation of the 
Federal Government. It would be exactly as the Bureau of Public 
Roads has set up standards of highway construction which must be 
met by the States before they can participate in Federal appropria- 
tions for the construction of public highways. I believe that this 
is the most effective means of attacking this enormous and important 
problem. 

Now, gentlemen, it has been suggested that there is another method 
of dealing with this problem. I know that my illustrious prede- 
cessor, Mr. Pinchot, is going to present that method. It is also 
before the United States Senate in the form of a bill, and I am going 
to refer to it very briefly. Mr. Pinchot will advocate to jou that this 
problem be met by direct Federal control of private lands in forest, 
or private lands classed as suitable for the production of forests. 
I have no disagreement with that method in principle, but I wish 
simply to point out some of the practical difficulties which are going 
to be encountered in attempting to apply it and which make it im- 
practicable as the best means of getting the results which both Mr. 
Pinchot and I are working for. 

Aside from the fact that the great preponderance of legal opinion 
is that such Federal regulation of private property and industry 
would be in violation of the Constitution, aside from the difficulty or 
impossibility of inducing the American people to accept such an 
exercise of Federal authority over private property and industry, 
such a plan, in my judgment, will not work, because it does not ht 
the practical conditions of the case. 

The first requisite for growing timber is the protection of forest 
lands from fire. That involves the exercise of the police powers of. 
the State or county in a dozen different directions, ranging from 
spark arrestors on locomotives to incendiarism. A second requisite 
for growing timber is some form of taxation which does not eat up 
the value of the crop while it is being grown. This rests with the 
local taxing powers of the State in which the land is located. Tax 
adjustments designed to secure the growing of timber should not bo 
shared by any landowner unless he actually does grow timber; 
in other words, specific requirements in reforestation must be met 
by the owner of the land in order to gain the benefit of special 
taxation. 

Regulation of the manner in which forest lands are cut can not be 
separated from the regulation of how" forest lands shall be taxed nor 
from regulation of how forest lands shall be protected from fire. 
All thre of these go together in actually bringing reforestation about. 
It is inconceivable that the Federal Government would take over the 



FOT^ESTRY. H 

police powers of the States whose exercise is essential to the preven- 
tion of forest lires. It is inconceivable that the Federal Government 
will take over the taxing powers and functions of the States. But 
unless these tAvo things are done it is not possible in my judgment 
for the Federal Government to regulate how forest lands shall be cut. 
To split up the one task between different public agencies would 
lead to duplication of responsibility and confusion. Either the Fed- 
eral Government or the State must deal with the private timber 
owner in all the phases of timber production on his land. 

The decree of regulation that is equitable in consideration of the 
local lire hazard, the local tax conditions, and local economic condi- 
tions must be worked out by some public agency which controls all 
of these factors as far as they are within public' control. Since it is 
not iDossible for the Federal Government to take over the whole job, 
the Federal Government should leave the States to deal with the 
private forest owner. 

There is no question that our several States have ample police 
power to regulate the use and protection of forest land. In many 
instances that power has already been exercised by the States. 
Twenty-six of our States have established forestry departments and 
built up organizations for fire protection and other forest work. If 
the Federal Government should now attempt to regulate forest lands 
an inevitable conflict between State and Federal requirements would 
ensue. We would face the prospect of two sets of regulations en- 
forced by two sets of officials upon the same forest owners and not 
necessarily in agreement, I do not believe that this is the ]Dractical 
way to get results. I do not believe that the effective work done by 
many States in forestry and the forest organizations which they 
have built up should be discarded in our Federal policy. Eatlier 
would I recognize the right of the State to control the use of its own 
private lands, and build upon that right with the local sentiment 
and initiative which lie behind it in developing our national forestry 
policy. 

I am satisfied that a policy of cooperation represents the most 
effective way by which the Federal Government can bring about the 
growing of timber on private forest lands. The expenditure of na- 
tional funds under the terms of sections 1 and 2 is fully justified by 
the returns assured to our densely populated industrial and agricul- 
tural States in the form of a future supply of timber which other- 
wise they would lack. The people and industries in the States whose 
Federal taxes will largely carry out this policy can rest assured that 
the mone}^ which they furnish is Avisely invested in growing timber. 

In no instance will funds be expended unless the State carries out 
the requirements found necessary by the National Forest Service to 
make timber grow. These may either be an effective fire-prevention 
system maintained by the State itself, or regulations imposed by 
the State upon its forest owners in reference to fire prevention, or dis- 
posal of slashings, or the leaving of seed trees, as shall be found nec- 
essary in each forest region. Unless the requirements deemed essen- 
titil by the National Forest Service are met, the funds will not be 
expended. 

After careful study of the whole subject for several years, with 
discussions embracing practically every region and group of people 



12 FORESTRY. 

interested in timber production, and after the experience of the For- 
est Service in cooperation with States for nine years, I arn satisfied 
that the first two sections of the bill now before this committee, sup- 
ported by the appropriation carried in the fourth section, represent 
the most effective step that the National (xovernment can take to 
secure the o;rowin^ of timber on the private forest lands of the 
country. 

Mr. SxEix. Do vou have an additional statement that vou want 
to file? 

Col. Greeley. Yes, sir ; I would like to submit a further statement 
for the record. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Colonel. 

Mr. Snell. I will call upon Mr. Alfred Gaskill, State forester of 
New Jersey, to address the committee. Mr. Gaskill will speak from 
the viewpoint of the State forester. 

The Chairman. We will be o;lad to hear from Mr. Gaskill. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALFRED GASKILL, STATE FORESTER OF 
NEW JERSEY, TRENTON, N. J. 

Mr. Gaskill. Mr. Chairman, I shall speak for New Jersey only 
as one of the 22 States whose forestry officials have authorized me 
to represent them in support of the principles involved in House bill 
15327. Formal action was taken at a conference held at Atlantic 
City on November 12 and 13, 1920. The States concurring are Ala- 
bama, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisi- 
ana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts Michigan, Montana, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey. New York, Ohio, Ore<»;on, Texas, Vir ovinia. 
West Virtrinia, and Wisconsin. In my representative capacity, 
therefore, I shall confine myelf to the first two sections, which pro- 
vide for coo])ertion with the States in forest protection and forest 
renewal. It is our conviction that adequate fire control will do more 
than anythinp: else or than all i^ractical thin^rs else to put the coun- 
try's woodlands upon a productive basis. 

You will admit that the States are vitally interested in this pro- 
gram, because it means the acceptance of a considerable measure of 
Federal control over State activities. It is freely fjranted, how^ever, 
that the necessity for assuring; the future lumber supply establishes 
a national obli<ration. Thus we find a Federal interest and responsi- 
bility conjoined with State interests and responsibility. The part of 
the Federal Government seems to be to furnish the motive power, 
and that of the States to provide at least as much money and to 
exercise control. And this is reasonable, because when Cono;ress 
recoo;nizes a situation and a prog^ram everybody gets interested. 
None of the States, I think, attach undue weifjht to the money end 
of this measure; they want the appropriations, of course, but they 
want them more as assurance of Federal support and a means of 
stimulatinfr local effort than for Avhat they will buy. Some States are 
carrying their own load in rather acceptable fashion, but most are 
backAvard, and no one knows better than the State foresters how 
much Government backing means. 

Without committing themselves to an indorsement of each pro- 
vision, the State foresters see in this act as a whole a means bv w^iich 



FORESTRY. 13 

the unproductive forest lands in every State can be brought to serve 
the emergency that we face. 

For my own part the question before us concerns itself 'only inci- 
dentally with the statement or fact that the country at large is using 
wood three or more times as fast as it is being produced. The 
vital point is that our consuming population is becoming more and 
more dependent upon remote sections, more and more burdened with 
high freights, while the land that is able to satisfy most of our needs 
is worse than neglected. And the case is the more serious that a de- 
ficiency can not l3e met by a quick change in policy. It takes quite a 
while to grow timber. 

The prime intent of this act is to provide lumber for the future, 
and by starting now to take advantage of the trees 10. 20, 30 years 
old in the cut-over forests, and by that much help to narrow the gap 
that threatens between the mature forests of the present and those 
which must be grown to satisfy coming generations. After the reserve 
store, the mature stands upon which Ave still are drawing, are gone, 
each section must look out for itself. To the extent that the exhaus- 
tion of these virgin stands, our timber mines, is anticipated will the 
paths of our successors be made less rough. 

I would not have you infer that we expect to provide wood for the 
future as liberally or at as low cost as nature has provided it in the 
past. What I seek to impress upon you is our conviction that in this 
measure there lies the means to satisfy the Nation's future need for an 
important low-cost material — and in low cost I include fabrication as 
well as production. 

Under whatever changes the future may have for us, it can be 
asserted with confidence, I think, that wood is one material which the 
world must continue to use in considerable quantity. And for the 
production of this most necessary material every State now has great 
areas of idle land. In a word, our argument is, let us set our idle, 
nonagricultural land at work. To the extent that this is done in the 
populous regions — that means largely in the older States — will the 
cost to the consumer be lessened by transport savings. May I stress 
this point and illustrate it by pointing out that little Jersey has 
2,000,000 acres of forest land, that Massachusetts has as much, that 
Pennsylvania has 9,000,000 acres, and New York 12,000,000 acres. If 
each of these 25,000,000 acres is made to produce no more than 100 
board feet of lumber a year, the total is, quantitatively, one-sixteenth 
of the Nation's present consumption, and it will be close to where it 
is wanted. If all other similar lands are redeemed, the lumber and 
pulp problem becomes no problem at all. 

In considering a measure of this kind one necessarily questions 
what may be the alternatives. I can see but two : One, that the Na- 
tion continue to build up the national forests, nearly all of them 
remote from populous centers, in the admirable way that it is doing, 
and leave the States to look after their own interests in the best way 
they can; the other, that the Federal Government take hold and 
by coercive measures insure an adequate lumber supply. One might 
well hesitate to support the latter at this time. Apart from the con- 
stitutional question, every State is jealous of its rights and interests, 
and disinclined to accept Federal domination. Most of the State 
32002—21 2 



14 FOEESTEY. 

forestry departments are naturally averse to such a proposition be- 
cause it means little less than their virtual extinguishment. The 
cost of thfe necessary supervision and control has never been calcu- 
lated, so far as I know, yet it can not fail to be heavy. Is Congress 
ready to assume that? State interests and private interests are sure 
to oppose, whether it be on account of restrictions, though they have 
in them a considerable measure of reasonableness, or whether it be 
simply antagonism to what is held to be a usurpation of rights. 
Furthermore, can Federal authority compass those nice adjustments 
that inhere in local interest and local conditions? 

Viewed from whatever angle you like, it is our clear and deliber- 
ate opinion that this measure offers a positive, practical, and reason- 
able means of accomplishing a nation-wide good and satisfying a 
nation-wide need. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gaskell. 

Mr. Snell. I will now 'introduce Mr. E. T. Allen, of Portland, 
Oreg., who represents the Western Forestry and Conservation Asso- 
ciation and the National Lumber Manufacturing Association. Mr. 
Allen will discuss this question from the practical viewpoint of the 
owners of timber land and of the manufacturers of lumber. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Allen. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. T. ALLEN, OF PORTLAND, OREG., REPRE- 
SENTING THE WESTERN FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION AS- 
SOCIATION AND THE NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS' 
ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Snell has stated, I represent two 
organizations that are somewhat distinct, that is, the Western For- 
estry and Conservation Association and the National Lumber Manu- 
facturers' Association. The Western Forestry and Conservation As- 
sociation is an alliance of Pacific coast timber owners in five States 
who spend between $500,000 and $1,000,000 a year in protecting their 
timber and cut-over land, patroling over 25,000,000 acres. I am also 
forester for the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, which 
includes most of the lumber production of this countiy. I suppose 
that in this hearing I really represent the private interests, or the 
lumber business. 

Speaking thus on behalf of forest industry, the main thing I want 
to impress upon you is that as far as it has a collective voice, author- 
ized by all its organizations, it goes all the way in these two state- 
ments : First, that it believes this country should have such a na- 
tional-forest policy as this bill contemplates, and, second, that it 
expects to do its share to make the policy successful. We are for this 
forestry movement, notwithstanding that we realize fully it may to 
some extent restrict individual independence for the common good. 
All we ask is that it be worked out in the most practical way, with 
all concerned sharing equally without discrimination, and with our 
industry treated as a cooperating ally and not as an enemy. 

^ye know that enough and the right kind of forest lands must 
be kept permanently productive, and that the responsibility for this 
must be distributed between Federal, State, and private ownership. 
None of these will or can accomplish the result alone. They must 



FOF.ESTKY. 15 

share in the joli and help each other. They can not do it jointly 
without the intellifjent support of the whole people, understanding 
the needs and the exigencies of forest growing as fully and as sympa- 
thetically as they do those of agriculture. In other words, a suc- 
cessful forest policy must be based not so much upon the require- 
ments of consumption as upon the requirements of production. It 
must know what will induce and what will prevent. 

Nobody knows the exact ultimate division of permanent forest 
management and ownership as betvreen public and private agencies. 
It will eventually adjust itself according as it is sound and permanent 
business for each. There is no permanent basis except sound busi- 
ness. Obviously, to some extent lumbering is a transitory and migra- 
tory industry. Nobody would want it to occupy all the ground it 
has ever helcl. On the other hand, it should not be as transitory and 
migratory as it has been. Nor can it be, because new virgin fields no 
longer exist. The tendency of the industry will be to improve the 
management of the lands it expects to occupy permanently and 
profitably in its primarj^ manufacturing capacity. I do not see how 
sentiment or legislation could make private effort engage in produc- 
ing an ample timber supply, regardless of inclination, ability, or 
profit, any more than they can compel it to mine gold enough to make 
us all rich. The effectiveness of public effort lies rather in : First, 
bringing about the maximum of permanent private effort that has a 
sound basis to sustain interest and success; and, second, in preventing 
unnecessary destruction of the producing capacity of the residue 
lands which the public itself must acquire. In large measure both of 
these objects require a public policy of encouragement rather than 
punitive steps. 

The measure of private interest in new forest crops is everywhere 
and always a comparison of costs with the value of the product. As 
long as the country affords available virgin stumpage at less than 
the cost of duplicating it through investment in lands, interest, taxes, 
risk, and steps to start the crops, why then it does not pay to grow 
trees. At the stage of the country's history when virgin stumpage 
value equals production costs, or forecasts such a situation conclu- 
sively, interest in forest growing begins. Either too low stumpage 
or too high costs defers it and no sentiment or compulsion will alter 
this. 

The significant fact is that this country has now just about reached 
the stage — some portions of it have and many lumbermen realize it — 
when stumpage values show it is profitable to grow timber if the cost 
and risk are not excessive because of fire hazard and confiscatory 
taxation. This situation is worth more to forestry than any amount 
of interest in the past when it would not have repaid the effort, and 
more than any amount of artificial regulation that could now be 
devised. It wipes off the slate most of the old controversies, when 
foresters could not see why lumbermen did not listen to them and 
when lumbermen did not see why they should. It is nov>^ time to 
talk about forest growing. The very shortage which frightens us 
is the one thing to accomplish its remedy. 

It is also reason for dealing with it in a businesslike way ; because 
if we do not now make it feasible to hold forest land and manage 
it wisely on an extensive scale and at the lowest possible cost, this 



16 P^ORESTRY. 

omission will be reflected both in shortage and in the high prices 
necessary to repay high costs. 

Now, you must pardon me if I seem to wander from this bill into 
the field of forest economics. I do so only to contribute the lum- 
berman's viewpoint so that you may judge the effect upon him of 
this bill or any bill, and of the sincerity of his interest in it. He 
sums it all up about as follows : 

Forest growing is at best a business of slow and small returns, 
which appeals little except as a means of insuring raw material 
affording a legitimate profit through manufacture. Hence, he sees 
it confined as a private enterprise to favorable areas, tributary to a 
permanent manufacturing business. Thus he sees it dependent also 
on economic soundness in the entire lumber industry, based on serv- 
ice to the community which is recognized as useful, not destructive, 
and entitled to a return neither greater nor less than that justly 
accorded otlier forms of endeavor. Otherw^ise, he would be foolish 
not to abandon it. 

Next, as a matter of common sense and solvency, he thinks forest 
growing must have reasonable protection of the investment against 
loss by fire, and that, as in all countries where forestry is practiced, 
taxation of the crop for so long a period must not be uncertain and 
confiscatory. As a rule he has not these assurances and can not pro- 
vide them for himself. They require State' legislation and public 
support. 

Finally, he senses that public interest in the land he can not afford 
to keep will inspire some effort to regulate the condition in which 
he leaves it. He feels that this involves difficult questions that 
should be solved competently, and not in ignorance or prejudice, and 
that conditions seem to be lacking for solving them competently. In 
other words, we have no policy. 

Thus, we have a set of what we might call essential conditions 
which must be provided by the public, but which have not as yet 
been provided. One reason, perhaps, is that the public lacks assur- 
ance that advantage will not be taken of it by the selfish lumber- 
man, with no reciprocal benefits of forest perpetuation. It should 
not be difficult to provide this, but unfortunately there is a tendency 
to magnify the difficulty. Ill-informed advisers on both sides have 
contributed to this, arguing an inherent hostility between private 
and public interest, resulting on the one hand in demand for punitive 
regulation of the industry w'hich disregards entirely its governing 
economic conditions, and, on the other hand, an unreasoning oppo- 
sition to any regulation because impossible forms have been dis- 
cussed. 

Such a deadlock is vicious in theory and effect. There can be no 
solution based on a warfare which disregards either interest. No 
sane community would place impracticable restrictions upon one 
of its chief sustaining industries and the very one required to couA'ert 
into usable form the particular resource at issue. No sane industry 
would willingly destroy its source of raw material or defy public 
interest and j^ower which can penalize it in countless ways. In all 
essentials, if not in all undetermined details of method, the interest 
in forest perpetuation is absolutely mutual. The first of these essen- 
tials is constructive cooperation. 



FORESTRY. 1 7 

As we see it, this bill seeks to break the deadlock Avhich has so long 
existed, not only between the industry and the public but also between 
the States and the Federal Government, It proposes to define and 
carry out the Government's responsibilities, at the same time as- 
sisting States and individuals to determine theirs. It iuA^okes our 
constitutional spirit of cooperation between all these agencies, giving 
each due consideration, utilizing the peculiar facilities of each, 
and making the most effective appeal to each. It tends equally to 
awaken and guide the public interest which inevitably must deter- 
mine the final result. 

We are not afraid of such a process. The American people have 
always been fair when they have known all the facts. Given means 
by which these can be arrived at, with all sides heard, and with corre- 
lation by competent, impartial Federal agency, and the general 
principles of a just and effective national policy will certainly be 
determined. Given also means by which these are localized, because 
forestry is a local matter very largely, in the same democratic man- 
ner and as suited to the needs and conditions of each forest region, 
and the application is not going to be impracticable, and we are not 
afraid of it. 

It seems to us the bill does exactly this thing. We believe that 
when all the facts are knawn and the maximum of voluntary par- 
ticipation is inspired, it will be found that our forest problem is 
in the main solved. But if any regulatory steps are necessary to 
assure equitable participation by lumbermen in this movement, then 
we must expect them to be taken. We think they will be more fairly 
taken and with less danger of ignorance or prejudice or injustice, 
than under any alternate system of which we can conceive, either 
leaving the subject to uncorrelated State action or attempting con- 
trol by the Government without recognizing that we still remain 
under the possibly conflicting authority of the State. We believe 
that regulatory steps must harmonize with our fire and tax condi- 
tions, as Mr. Greeley has set forth. 

We commend the sanity of this bill in recognizing the elemental 
importance of the fire problem. To the man from the woods all 
other forest proposals seem like putting the cart before the horse 
while we are burning up not only the forests we have but also the 
millions of acres of natural reproduction which will come much 
nearer than is realized to meeting the entire need, if protected. 
TTntil we get on top of this problem not much else is worth while, 
and it calls for the best all of us can give it. 

As a concluding argument, I want to answer a possible feeling that 
this bill is not decisive ; that it is experimental. It does not seem 
so to lumbermen or to State officials or to Federal officials out West 
where the national forest system has existed and has brought us into 
the same sort of contact, generally, that this bill anticipates. I will 
tell you the story of this and then I am through. 

About 15 years ago a group of Idaho lumbermen decided it was 
better to cooperate in protecting their land than to do it inde- 
pendently. So they organized a cooperative patrol for which each 
paid at the same rate according to their acreage. Soon there were 
four such organizations in Idalio. with the State also a member, 
paying similarly on its grant land and giving police power to the 



18 rOEESTRY. 

field forces. Washinoton then followed with a similar organiza- 
tion covering all the big fir country in the State of Washington. 

Mr. aicLALGHLiN of Michigan. Was that under State laws? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. These five pioneer organizations then estab- 
lished the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, which 
I represent, as a sort of grand lodge or clearing house to perfect 
fire methods, to extend this system over more land, and to get better 
cooperation between the State, Federal, and private agencies. State 
and Federal officials were taken in. serving on its committees. Agree- 
ments were made by which the three agencies — State, Federal, and 
private — divided areas and responsibilities where that was best or 
pooled them where that was best. 

This worked so well that other similar organizations were created 
in Montana, Oregon, and California until soon there were 30 of 
them, covering virtually all the private forests of the whole North- 
west from Montana tonorthern California, covering one-fourth of 
the Nation's forest resources, with trained forces, trails, telephones, 
and lookouts, and publicity work to educate the public in care with 
tire. 

In every case they cooperated closely with the States and Govern- 
ment and jointly- they began to improve State fire laws. The State 
itself took general supervisory authority over the system and di- 
rected its police powder. The private owners contributed most of the 
funds. Under this situation in a few years we had a contributing 
private area of some lo.OOO.OOO acres, putting up from $500,000 to 
$1,000,000 a year for this work of fire protection, and toward that 
there was a State contribution of $85,000 and a Federal contribution 
of $25,000 a year for the joint system which the State supervised, 
but in which the Government had a voice, and to support which pri- 
vate owners sometimes paid nearly $1,000,000 to the public's little 
over $100,000. Bear in mind that these public contributions are 
nearly constant, being made by advance appropriation for a skeleton 
system. The private owners hold the sack, as it were, for all the 
balance required, according to the seasonal hazard. In bad years 
this reaches a tremendous sum. Bear in mind, also, that in all this 
assessment we pay on our cut-over lands just the same as we do on 
our timberlands. 

Obviously such a sj'stem makes the contributor interested in good 
fire protection and good fire laws. He was more insistent than any 
one else to ^-et them so he will not have to spend so much to fight 
fire. So lumbermen themselves went after laws controlling the fire 
hazard created by their industry; their slash disposal, patrols after 
locomotives, and what not. They also realize that fire starts anj^- 
where and runs anywhere, on their land on the other fellow's land 
and on the cut-over land and on timberland, so they had to protect 
it all, and the progressive, willing contributors did not want to carry 
the load for selfish owners who rode free. So in States like Oregon 
and Washington where ownership is most numerous (in Oregon 
alone there are 16,000 timber owners), laws were passed making pa- 
trol compulsory and every timber owner in the State has to bear his 
share, covering his cut-over land also where there is fire hazard. 

As a result we have a system which not only takes care of our 
merchantable timber better, I believe, than any State or Govern- 



FORESTRY. 19 

ment does, because State or Government contributions to such work 
are restricted by preceding- appropriation, while we pay the bills as 
the season develops the need, and in bad years sometimes go to 20 or 
30 cents an acre, but we also take care of a large proportion of all 
denuded and restocking land, whether it is ours or belongs on the 
public domain. Therefore we are getting reforestation which is 
verv gratifying. In the West natural reproduction is swift and sure 
if giA'en protection, which is therefore nine-tenths of the forestry 
problem. We would be glad to bear our fair share of protecting all 
such denuded land, because we want a second crop and want to keep 
fire out of the country, but without more help in a cooperative pre- 
ventive system, we do not feel we can, under our system of obliga- 
tion to fight every fire to a finish, extend this obligation to assessing 
our own land to any sum necessary to take care of anybody's land 
at any distance. 

I have described this cooperative movement in some detail for a 
munber of reasons. One is to show why we think the cooperative 
fire fund proposed by this bill is a good thing to encourage such 
systems elsewhere. Another is to show why its allotment can prop- 
erly recognize private effort compelled and supervised by State law. 
Thirdly, I want you to see that in no way are we trying to pass the 
burden of protecting our own timber to the Government. We will 
still do this and more. We advocate only that the Government do 
enough to represent its interest in protecting the reforestation from 
Avhich the consumer, not the lumberman of to-day, will be the bene- 
ficiary. Finally, I have tried to give you proof that where coopera- 
tion and intelligent policy assure its just and useful application, the 
lumberman does not oppose but rather helps invoke the police au- 
thority of the State to safeguard forest resources. We have found 
that the connnon interest in forest perpetuation carries us a long way 
when approached in the proper spirit; also that this process estab- 
lishes relations for the best settlement of those details on which our 
views may differ. We believe all national forest problems can be 
sohed in this way. We only ask that States and Government do 
their share as fully as they properly expect us to do our share. We 
think this bill fits us all. 

Mr. YoiGHT. Mr. Allen, are you in favor of any measure that will 
compel the owner of timber land to reforest ? 

Mr. Allen. That is a question which would have to be answered 
with some qualifications. I would say yes, if you ask whethei- I am 
in favor of some such measure. I believe there must be reciprocal 
obligations. If the public gives him a square deal, I think so; but I 
do not think you can compel him to stay in the business at a loss. I 
do think you can properly compel him, provided the cost is not ex- 
cessive and he has reciprocal help from the public, not to destroy the 
productive capacity of his land. 

Mr. VoiGT. You would favor measures that would compel the owner 
of timber land to cut his timber in such way as not to destroy the 
young timber that is coming on? 

Mr. Allen. Yes: if the cost of so doing is equitably distributed. 
It would seem to me that attem])ts at police power in this matter can 
be classified in three ways: First, regulations which prevent any- 
body from maintaining a menace to other people,- and carelessness 



20 FORESTRY. 

with fire would be that. I think you can compel that of a man 
without comijensating: him. I think you can oro furtser and compel 
other tilings which are in the public interest provided the public 
equitably shares the bill. I do ndt think you can compel a man by 
law to constructively engage in putting money into the consumer's 
pocket. Thirdly, I^ think we maV have proposals which are im- 
practicable or unconstitutional. Of course, there are things that 
can be required of the private timber owner. For example, we 
ourselves require him to patrol and to burn his slash. 

Mr. VoiGT. This bill, if I read it correctly, does not compel the 
owner of timber land to do anything. 

Mr. Allen. Not under Federal authority. It assumes that with 
some Government subsidy and a great deal of Government education 
and correlation, the States themselves will exercise any necessary 
police authority. 

Mr. VoiGHT. If I read this bill correctly it does not compel the 
State to take any action which will compel the timber owner to do 
anything. 

Mr. Allen. Correct. I do not think it does. 

Mr. VoiGT. In other words, if the bill becomes a law it will spend 
the Government's money in a voluntary effort in which the coopera- 
tion of the interested timber owner can not be compelled ; am I right 
on that ? 

Mr. Allen. I should say it would depend partly on the policy of 
the department that spends the money, and I assume the department 
is not going to spend the money unless it thinks it is getting the results 
it wants in behalf of the Federal taxpayers. 

Mr. VoiGT. You are an officer of the National Lumber Manufac- 
turers' Association? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VoiGT. What office do you hold ? 

Mr. Allen. Their advisory forester. 

Mr. VoiGT. You spend most of your time here in Washington ? 

Mr. Allen. No, sir. 

Mr, VoiGT. You have spent considerable time here in Washington 
in the last three or four years ? 

Mr. Allen. I have spent considerable time here. I was asked to 
come here by the Council of National Defense to serve on the lumber 
committee. I was asked to come here by Commissioner Roper, Com- 
missioner of Internal Revenue, first, to occupy a position in the 
Treasury Department where they thought they needed some knowl- 
edge of timber matters, and when I did not care to do that I was 
asked to come to act in a measure to help them cooperate with timber 
owners. I have come here at other times on matters of this sort. 

Mr. VoiGT. Is this bill backed up by the lumber manufacturers of 
the country ? 

Mr. Allen. Yes ; to this extent : Lumber manufacturers of the 
country think this is a big problem that has got to be solved, and 
they tiiink this bill, or the proposal of the Forest Service which 
originated it, is the sort of thing they ought to back up. If the 
Federal Government proposes it, they are willing to back it up and 
stand by it. I can not speak for all the 30,000 of them, but so far 
as they have any collective voice they are back of this bill ; yes, sir. 



FORESTRY. 21 

Mr, VoiGT. Did the lumber people of the country have a meetiiif]^ 
here recently to discuss this bill ? 

Mr. Allen. Here? 

Mr. VoiGT. Yes. 

Mr. Allen. Not that I know of. The history of the connection of 
the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association with this bill is 
very simple. Col. Graves, Col. Greeley's predecessor, wanted to talk 
to them about it, and they were invited to meet him on it and they did 
so and asked him what he wanted. He said they should appoint a 
committee and discuss it with him. They did so and the committee 
has discussed it with him and later with Col. Greeley. It listened 
to the artjuments of the Forest Service and they sounded pretty rea- 
sonable to us. so we thouo;ht it was our duty and to our advantage 
to get behind it, not to fight it, and we are behind it quite sincerely. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. Mr. Allen, is there not a law in Japan to the effect 
that if 3'ou cut a tree you have to plant two ? 

Mr. Allen. I give it up. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you not believe that woidd be a good law in 
this country ? 

Mr. Allen. No ; not necessarily. For example, in the State where 
I live they do not plant trees. The Government itself in the national 
forests does not plant trees. 

Mr. McKinley. That is, they let somebody else do it ? 

Mr. Allen. No, sir; there is natural reproduction. The profes- 
sional forester in the fir region, for example, where I come from, 
finds he gets reproduction by what he calls clean cutting, then burn- 
ing the ground over and letting it seed up. 

Mr. McKinley. What I mean by my question is, do you not be- 
lieve that when you, as a lumberman, clear the lumber off of a 640- 
acre section of land you ought to be required by law to start other 
trees there? 

Mr. Allen. No ; I do not go that far. I think, in the first place. 
v>e do not Iniow positively what land should be kept permanently 
in forest. Nobody would think that all the land that has been 
lumbered 

Mr. McKinley. Of course, nobody would think that now. 

Mr. Allen (continuing). From Plymouth Rock to Oregon should 
be, and we do not know where it should be.> Generally speaking, 
I think a great deal more land should be kept permanently produc- 
tive than is kept productive. I think the whole object will be reached 
more fully than lots of people think it will by adequate fire pro- 
tection. I think that goes a long way. 

Mr. McKinley. Your feeling then 

Mr. Allen. That is the first thing to do. 

Mr. McKinley. Your feeling then is that the owner of land 
should denude it of timber and then trust to the Lord and to the 
Government to get some more trees ; is that the idea ? 

Mr. Allen. No ; I would not say yes to that ; no, indeed. 

Mr. TiNCHER. In my case, there was a gentleman here from New 
Jersey who spoke for the Kansas forest this morning, and I do 
not believe I will ask you any questions, because I have only lived 
there 30 or 40 years, and I am going to trust New Jersey to properly 
represent our State on forests. If anybody cuts a tree in Kansas 



22 FORESTRY. 

the feelino- out there is that he ought to be shot instead of being 
required to plant two trees. 

Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, in view of the 
tenor of some of the questions I have been asked, I would like to 
make this short explanation. The Western Forestry and Conserva- 
tion Association, which I represent and which pays me my salary 
absolutely — I do not get a dollar from anybody else — has for 11 
years existed for the purpose and for the only purpose of bringing 
about such things as the State, the timber owner, and the Federal 
Government equally want and which is to their mutual interest. If 
there are any other jobs that lumbermen want done in the way of a 
tariff or reciprocal demurrage, or anything of that sort, we do not 
touch it. We have always scrupulously engaged only in such projects 
and indorsed only such things as those in which we could have a 
mutual interest ; that is, the Federal Government, the private owner, 
and the State, and on no other function have I ever been in Wash- 
ington. 

Mr. VoiGT. Did I understand you to say you had been in the 
•employ of the Government for the last three or four years? 

Mr. Allen. No, sir; I was in the employ of the Forest Service up 
to the year 1909, I think it was, barring a period when I was recom- 
mended by Mr. Pinchot to be State forester of California. Within 
the last 11 years I have been asked here at times in the capacity I 
have just tried to describe, that of a neutral expert on forestry mat- 
ters, to act in a sort of Col. House capacity between the two interests. 
I have come sometimes at the instigation of my own judgment and 
occasionally at the invitation of governmental departments, including 
the Treasury Department and the Forest Service. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. Did you tell them about the spruce, Mr. Allen? 

Mr. Allen. I tried to, and they would not listen to me. They 
thought they would rather have the Army do it. They sent me out 
West for that purpose, the War Industries Board did, to start the 
sj^ruce work, and I lasted about one month, because I could not get 
along with the War Department. 

The Chairman. How long does it take to grow a merchantable 
tree ? 

Mr. Allen. It depends on the tree and the region and the size. 

The Chairman. I said a merchantable tree. 

Mr. Allen. Well, merchantable standards vary, but, roughly, I 
would say you would not expect to get much anywhere under 40 or 
50 years, and more probably 60 or 70 years. 

The Chairman. Is it not estimated at 130 j'^ears ? 

Col. Greeley. One hundred and thirty years would produce large 
growth timber, but you can produce pulp wood in 25 years and box 
lumber in 40 years, depending upon the quality of the product. 

The Chairman. Pine for lumber and saAving? 

Col. Greeley. For rough construction lumlier, 50 or 60 years, sir. 

The Chairman. I believe I have noticed some estimate of 130 
years. What did that have reference to ? 

Col. Greeley. The very high-grade material, like the high-grade 
soft pine or high-grade hardwoods. 

The Chairman. Have you any estimates as to the cost of producing 
merchantable timber ? 



FORESTEY. 23 

Mr. AixEN. That, sir, would be like estiniatin<j: the cost of pro- 
ducing potatoes. In some places it is produced at almost no cost 
except fire protection and taxation, because you get rapid reproduc- 
tion naturally, and in some places it would probably require planting. 

The Chairman. What would it cost if it takes 60 or TO years on 
land worth $100 an acre ? 

Mr. Allen. It would be so much that I do not think anyone has 
ever been interested in making that calculation. I do not think 
many believe that groAving forest is profitable if the land is worth 
more than $5 an acre. 

The Chairman. Five dollars an acre would make the cost about 
$32,000 an acre including taxes and interest, assuming it would 
double itself every 10 j^ears. 

Mr. xVllen. No ; I do not think so. It depends on the country. I 
would saj^ in our Douglas fir region we might expect to get in 50 or 
60 or TO years a pretty good crop. 

The Chairman. Would it not cost about $32,000 an acre? 

Mr. Allen. No; I should not think so. 

The Chairman. It is an easy matter to ascertain. 

Mr. Allen. You mean to add to your original land value at com- 
pound interest 

The Chairman. Yes ; at compound interest and with the taxes. 

Mr. Allen. I can not do that in m}^ head, but I should say that at 
$5 it would get up to a pretty good sum, and then your profit would 
depend a good deal on the amount of timber you got off of it. 

The Chairman. The cost at the end of 60 years would be some- 
thing like $32,000? 

Mr. Allen. I should not think it woidd, but possibly some of these 
foresters have that data better in their minds than I have. 

Col. Greeley. I would like to say that a good many calculations 
of that sort have been made. Do you wish further reply on the mat- 
ter of cost? 

The Chairman. Yes ; if you have any figures. 

Col. Greeley. I would just like to say that calculations made by 
the State of Massachusetts in connection with an extensive program 
for the purchase of State land on a purely business basis has shown 
that pine timber in that State can be planted and grown to mer- 
chantable size at a cost aroinid $25 a thousand as a fair average 
figure. Naturally-grown timber will cost much less. 

The Chairman. Does that include interest? 

Col. Greeley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And Avhat is the first cost? 

Col. Greeley. The purchase price of the land is limited to $10 an 
acre. 

Mr. Allen. We have figured that where it grows naturally as it 
does in the West, it can be produced for $6 or $T per thousand by 
natural reproduction. 

Mr. VoiGT. Mr. Allen, have you come from the West specifically to 
appear in favor of this bill or are you located in Washington ? 

Mr. Allen. No, sir; I live in Portland, Oreg. I came here for 
two purposes, one to appear in favor of this bill and the other to 
try to do what I could to get this fire appropriation before Congress — 
that is, the airplane patrol for our region — straightened out. 



24 rORESTRY, 

Mr. VoiGT. May I ask how long you have been in Washington on 
this trip ? 

Mr. Allen. I arrived January 6, to appear at the hearing before 
the House Appropriations Committee upon the forest-fire appro- 
priation. 

Mr. VoiGT. It is reported, I believe, by the Federal Trade Com- 
mission that you draw an enormous salary from this Manufacturer's' 
Association ? 

Mr. Allen. What association — the National Lumber Manufac- 
turers ? 

Mr. VoiGT. Or the association that you represent in this expert 
capacity. 

Mr. Allen. I did not see anything like that in the Federal Trade 
Commission report. 

Mr. VoiGT. I think that is true. 

Mr. Allen. I should like to have you read it to me. 

Mr. VoTGT. I have not got it with me, but I was told yesterday 
that that had been so reported. 

Mr. Allen. I do not think it was so printed ; at least, it was not in 
any copy of the Federal Trade Commission report that I saw. 

Mr. Tincher. In reference to this airplane business, the Govern- 
ment wasted $1,500,000 last year trying to carry the mail in airplanes, 
and I understand that there is some real function for the Air Service 
out in the forests of the West. 

Mr. Allen. We think so, if we could make the War Department 
see it. 

Mr. Tincher. They had a provision of that sort in the post-office 
bill, and if you can get busy around the proper quarters maybe you 
can help to keep that item out of the post-office bill and get it in a 
bill where it will do some good. 

Mr. Allen. We have always thought the air patrol a good thing,, 
and we do not exactly see, when the Army has to train these fliers 
and use these machines in peace time, why they might not as well 
be protecting natural resources as to be flying over some desert. 
They are doing a little on it, but they are doing very little. 

Mr. Tincher. It would be better practice for them to be flying 
around looking out for fires. 

Mr. Allen. We think so. 

Mr. Tincher. Than to start out for Chicago with a post card ? 

Mr. i\.LLEN. The Air Service thinks forest patrol profitable, but 
the (leneral Staff is not entirely convinced. 

Mr. Tincher. This same bunch that did not let you go any fur- 
ther in the spruce business than you did still want to carry mail by 
aeroplane. I saw an interview with some party high up that they 
were going to put that provision back in the bill, and if you have 
any influence over in the Senate, I do not care what your salary is, 
you try to keep that out of the Post Office bill. 

Mr. Allen. I do not think my salary is great enough to hire a 
man Avho has that much influence. 

The Chairman. Would not a separate Air Service solve the situ- 
ation? The Air Service is cooperating fully in the matter, but is it 
now handicapped by the General Staff as just indicated by Mr. 
Allen? I am sure, from my knowledge of that service, that the Air 



FORESTRY. 25 

Service is anxious to do this work. But it is the same old story of 
having their hands tied and duplication. 

Mr. Snell. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Tliank you, Mr. Allen. I was going to suggest 
that we now hear Mr. Pinchot. 

Mr. Snell. I was just going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we 
hear Mr. Pinchot at the present time. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT, COMMISSIONER OF 
FORESTRY, HARRISBURG, PA. 

The Chairman. We will be glad to hear j'ou now, Mr. Pinchot. 

Mr. Pinchot. Mr. Chairman, I can not help feeling a certain 
amount of satisfaction in coming once more before this Committee 
on Agriculture, as I used to do so often in the old days when I was 
forester during the Roosevelt Administration and when you gentle- 
men presided over the birth of the Forest Service and saw it grow 
to its maturity. It is mighty nice to be before you again and I shall 
take as little of j^our time as I possibly can. 

The Chairman. AYe are always pleased to have you Avith us, Mr. 
Pinchot. 

Mr. Pinchot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here 
as commissioner of forestry of Pennsylvania to protest against the 
passage of this bill, realizing, of course, there is no chance for it to 
pass at this session of Congress, but, nevertheless, anxious to put 
this protest on record at the same time arguments are made in favor 
of it. 

My own lifetime in Pennsylvania has almost spanned the differ- 
ence between the time when Pennsylvania was the first lumber-pro- 
ducing State of the Union and to-day when we import four-fifths 
of everything of this kind we use. The Pittsburgh district alone 
consumes more lumber than is produced by the whole State, and we 
are absolutely dependent on the surplus of other States for the con- 
tinuance of our agriculture and our industry. Moreover, it is cost- 
ing the citizens of our State something in the neighborhood of $100,- 
000,000 a year to bring timber from the outside that we might just 
as well grow inside of the State, and it Avill be many years, although 
the State has a, definite policy to that effect, before Pennsylvania can 
become self-supporting. 

Now, we are not alone in this matter. As Col. Greeley has already 
indicated, it happens that of the 48 States of the Union, 28 are ab- 
solutely dependent for some portion of their timber supply. That 
dependence ranges from 97 per cent, as he has indicated, all the way 
down, but, as I have said, they are dependent for some portion of 
their lumber supplies upon other States, or on outside sources of 
suppl3% and the sources of suppl}' outside of the Ignited States will 
never amount to anything. We must depend upon what is produced 
in this country. Just as an illustration of that, of the 21 members 
of this committee, 5 are from timber exporting States, while the 
remaining 16 are from States whose agriculture and other indus- 
tries can not prosper without help from other Commonwealths in 
this regard. It was indicated here to-day that the States which have 
standing timber are more vitally interested in this question than the 
States which have not. 



26 FORESTRY, 

As representing a State which is unable to supply its own needs, 
I hold the exact opposite of that. Pennsylvania, Iowa, Kansas, and 
other deforested and unforested States can only have what the for- 
ested States can let them have beyond their own needs. That is to 
say, the deforested and unforested States will get the surplus. That 
is upon the same principle that we know the farmer will be the last 
man to starve. Our forested States, with good timber supplies in 
them, will be the last States to feel the stringency due to a timber 
shortage, while the deforested and unforested States will be the lirst 
to feel it. Therefore, this whole question is much more vital to tlie 
States which are timber-importing States than it is to the timber- 
exporting States. Most of the timber that comes to Pennsylvania 
nov/ comes from the South, just as most of the timber that goes to 
Iowa comes from the South, but within 10 years from nov\', I think 
that supply will be practically exhausted, so far as exporting timber 
is concerned, and that we must then turn to the West for our timber 
supply. One-half of the standing timber in the United States is in 
the States of Washington. Oregon, and California. Sixty per cent 
of our standing timber supply is west of the Great Plains. More 
than one-half of the timber on the Pacific coast is in private hands. 

Now, the concentration of ownership is a very important matter, 
in my judgment, in connection with this bill. In this connection, I 
w^ould like to submit some figures taken from the report of the Bureau 
of Corporations. The concentration of timber ownership has changed 
materially since the exhaustive report made upon this subject by the 
Bureau of Corporations in 1910. One-half of the privately owned 
timber in the United States is held by approximately 250 large own- 
ers, the ownership of the remaining timber being very widely dis- 
tributed. "The tendency toward the acquisition and speculative hold- 
ing of timber beyond operating requirements has been checked and 
the present tendency is toAvard manufacture in connection witli large 
timber holdings. At the same time, the lumber industry, particu- 
larly in the western States, is going through a partial reorganiza- 
tion into larger operating and marketing groups. In this there is a 
tendency for small mills to disappear and small timber holdings 
to be blocked into larger ones adapted to extensive lumber manu- 
facture. While there are still a large number of individual timber 
owners and of sawmills operating as separate units, the larger inter- 
ests are acquiring a more dominant place in lumber manufacture in 
the West. It is to be expected that these large interests or groups 
will maintain, as time goes on, a fairly constant supply of timber for 
their manufacturing plants, acquiring smaller holdings. No infor- 
mation is at hand which would justify a conclusion that monopolistic 
conditions on any general scale have grown out of this situation. 
There are many instances to the contrary. On the other hand, the 
degree of control of the timber remaining in the United States exer- 
cised by a comparatively small number of large interests will steadily 
increase as timber depletion continues, approaching a natural mo- 
nopoly in character, and this control will extend particularly to the 
diminishing supply of high-grade material. 

How much that monopoly will amount to is well indicated by 
some of these figures, which are still good. For example, 16 timber- 
land holders, whose properties are mainly in the West, own timber- 



FOEESTKY. 27 

land enough to give almost 160 acres of land to every male of voting 
age in the nine A^estern States in which their holdings mainly occur. 
I^or example, if we should take together the timberlands of Wash- 
ington, Oregon, California, Montana, and Idaho and average them 
up w^e will hnd that an average of 5i% owners in each one of those 
States hold nearly half, or 48.98 per cent, of the land; for example, 
Oyq owners in Oregon own and control half the timberland in that 
State. 

Mr. TiNCHEB. How did the.y get those large tracts^ 

Mr. PiNCHOT. That is a question that it might not be very pleasant 
to go into. Those holdings were- gotten together originally partly 
under the law and partly by \ery important violations of the law. 
I hai^pened to be a member of the Public Land Commission under 
Col. Koosevelt, and as Forester I traveled over a good deal of that 
country with a pack on my back, and I know something about it. 
Those large timberland holdings could not have been gotten together 
except by fraud. I do not say that all of them were gotten together 
by fraud, but I do say that the concentration of many of the large 
timberland holdings in the West were attended by the most gigantic 
frauds. It is common knowledge that millions of acres of timber- 
lands were improperly filed upon, and that fraud of every sort was 
perpetrated in the concentration of these large holdings. I remember 
one case in Oregon where men took land as swamp land by swearing 
that they had been over the land in a boat, the boat at the same time 
having been carried on a wagon. 

Mr. TiNCHEE. Is the title to these lands in the same parties Avho 
filed on them or in the original parties '^ 

Mr. PiNCHOT. Very largely not, I suppose, by this time. 

Mr. VoiGT. W hat are some of the largest holdings of timberlands ? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. The largest single holding is that of the Southern 
Pacific Eailroad, and the next largest, I believe, is that of the North- 
ern Pacific Railroad. Then there are the holdings of the W^eyer- 
hauser Timber Syndicate, T. B. Walker, C. A. Smith, and a very 
considerable number of others. There are some gentlemen here who 
could give those figures better than I can. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. Did the railroads get their holdings through land 
grants ? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. Yes. The point I want to make is that there is an 
immense concentration of ownership and control of timberland in 
the W^est, and the West is the part of the country that is important 
in connection with this question. That is the condition now, and in 
the next 6 or 8 or 10 years, in accordance with the statement of the 
Forest Service, this concentration of ovv'iiership and control is going 
to increase. It is going to increase decidedly in the future. 

Now, gentlemen, I recognize the very great ability of the statement 
made by Mr. Allen, the gentleman wlio preceded me, but I want to 
call attention to this fact, that here are these lumbermen coming 
before you and asking to be controlled. These are the men who have 
made their money by the destruction of the timberlands and who 
have already destroyed in this country and reduced to desert condi- 
tion an area larger than the forests of Europe, excluding Eussia. 
There are 80,000,000 acres of those lands now contributing nothing 



28 FORESTRY. 

to the people of the United States. They are here now asking to be 
prevented from doing; that which has made them powerful and rich. 
We all know that the water-power people fouo-ht control and spent 
a great deal of money to prevent it ; Ave know that the oil people did 
the same thing, and even on a larger scale, and we know that the coal 
men are now attacking control and spending a great deal of money 
to prevent it. We know that the packers have spent enormous sums 
of money to prevent control. Yet these gentlemen come before you 
and ostensibly ask to be prevented from doing that very thing out of 
which they have made their money — that is, to be prevented from 
handling their lands as they choose. If that is true and if that is 
sound, so far as I know it is the very first case on record where any 
great special interest has come in and not only asked to have done to 
them the things which these other interests have spent large sums of 
money to avoid, but they are actually spending good money to bring 
it about. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. Is that entirely correct? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. I think so. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. These gentlemen say that they are 
now voluntarily and in cooperation with the States doing on a small 
scale tlie things that they wish to have carried out, perhaps, on the 
same scale or upon a larger scale by cooperation with the Federal 
Government. 

Mr. PiNCHOT. I think we ought to make a distinction there be- 
tween fire protection, which is what they are doing, and the control 
of the method of cutting, because that is what this bill contemplates. 
What these gentlemen are doing in that respect, and for which they 
are spending their money, is, perhaps, an admirable thing to do, but 
what they are doing or pro^Dosing to do should be exactly under- 
stood. They are spending money to. protect merchantable timber 
on their own land until it can be cut, and wdiere they are going onto 
second growth and burned-over areas and applying forest protec- 
tion measures, it is for the protection of the merchantable timber, 
and not for the purpose of getting a second growth. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. A larger measure of control must 
be had over cut-over lands and slashes where fires are more apt to 
start, and it is very essential that the fires should be stopped there 
so as not to extend to timber lands, but still they are protecting those 
cut-over lands and they are protecting young timber from which 
the future supply must come. I understand that the most essential 
thing in connection with the reforestation proposition is to keep out 
the fires and give the young natural growth a chance. 

Mr. Pinchot. That is a most essential thing, but it is not the most 
essential thing. The main thing that is up now, and the thing that 
will control the timber supply of the United States for a great many 
years, is the question of whether the 135,000,0€0 acres of virgin 
forest which still remains, but which is being cut at the rate of 
5,000,000 acres a year will be cut in such a way as to devastate the 
lands and keep them from producing a further supply. The main 
thing is to see that the young growth gets a chance. That is entirely 
separate and apart from the fire question. We are all agreed that 
the United States should cooperate with the States in keeping out 
the fires. That is something that is to everybody's interest. But 



FORESTRY. 29 

here is another question, separate from the fire question, and that 
is shall the private owners of timber land be prevented from dev- 
astating their land. That is what this bill is addressed to mainly. 

Mr. McLaughlix of Michigan. Will not the second growth come 
largely from the trees that the lumberman does not wish to cut at all 
and not from merchantable timber? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. In places it will come partly from that source, but 
by no means entirely from that source. If we are to escape the 
timber famine, forestry must be practiced on the privately owned 
lands, just as it is being practiced in the national forests. 

Mr. McKiNLEY, How is that? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. That would be a large question to answer, but it is 
by preventing the lumbermen as they fell the large trees from smash- 
ing young trees; it is by working the tops away so that the young 
trees can come up straight again and by leaving seed trees. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. You think that they should be required by law to 
do that, do you not? 

Mr. PiNCHOT. I think they should be required to do that by law, 
and I think that a national law is the only law that will accomplish 
it. They should be required by law to stop devastating these lands 
and to renew the productive capacity of the lands. I want to draw 
your attention to the fact that three Western States, or Pacific Coast 
States, are the only ones that are important in this connection, be- 
cause they have the great bulk of the timber that must be saved if 
we are to escape, so far as we can escape it, a timber famine. In 
that connection my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Gaskill, must be 
mistaken when he includes California among the States that are in 
favor of this bill, because my information is that at a recent confer- 
ence of the State Board of Forestry of California with officials of the 
United States Forest Service at San Francisco it absolutely refused 
to consider any form of compulsion 

Mr. Allen (interposing). I have a telegram saying that the State 
Board of Forestry of California has formally indorsed this bill. 

Mr. Gaskill. I have ample warrant for the statement I made in 
reference to the indorsement of this bill by California. 

Mr. PiNCHOT. I do know that the State Board of Forestry took 
action in December along the line I have indicated, and that is what 
I was speaking about. If there is more recent information, then it 
is different. The State of Oregon in a very carefulh^ worked out 
outline of its forest policy repeatedly takes up the question of 
persuading lumbermen to do these things, but it makes nowhere in 
the statement which is dated December 4 any reference whatever to 
compulsion. The State of Washington goes very much further. In 
a statement dated March 18, 1920, the State board says : 

The State Board of Forest Couiinissioners gladly acknowledges the assistance 
of the Government representatives in work performed and advice given, bnt 
we are not in sympatliy witli any legislation which will give to any officials 
control over the privately owned forests or lands of this State. We will not be 
qniet when we see a policy being formulated that will hamper our citizens, 
complicate our manufacturing system, and create a national guard of foresters 
which shall have the power to dictate to men who have become practical 
lumbermen and foresters and who need no theory of government to aid them 
in working out the problems of to-day and of the future. 

32002—21 3 



30 FORETSTRY. 

We shall maintain that unr State is entitled to all the benefits which come 
from being fortunate in ha ving~ within its borders millions of acres of timber- 
land which will reforest if protected as it has done many times in the past. 

We look with fear upon the complicated system of legislation suggested by 
the chief forester of the United States. 

Now, there are a considerable number of gentlemen present in 
support of this bill who are not timberlancl owners, who are not 
timber or lumber dealers, and who represent the consumers. There 
is a perfectly definite line which will be just as controlling as the 
fact that a great majority of our States have agricultural and in- 
dustrial populations. Three-fourths of the States are either de- 
forested or unforested States, and that fact Avill ultimately be de- 
termining as to the character of legislation that you will pass in this 
matter. Another factor that I wish to call attention to is that there 
is a complete economic condition that will ultimately be determining 
in the final alignment as between the timberlancl owners and pro- 
ducers on the ©ne side and the dealers and consumers on the other, 
so that when this thing comes to be a hard- fought fight, as it will 
be later on, we Avill find a complete redistribution and alignment as 
to who is on one side and who is on the other. Now, the people I 
have been talking about are timberland owners. They are a little 
group of men, mainly in the West, who have already, I think, a 
monopolistic control over the timber sup])ly of the rest of the country, 
and who will have a very much larger control. These gentlemen 
recognize the fact that if this bill should pass they will have con- 
trol, as they always have had, over the legislatures of their own 
States, or sufficient control to prevent those legislatures from taking 
any action which will be hostile to their interests. 

The nub of the matter is right there. You would turn the control 
of the lumber supply of the country over to the State legislatures, 
and when you do that you will find that the great bulk of the States 
of the Union will be at the mercy of the Legislatures of Washing- 
ton, Oregon, and California. Those legislatures, of course, will be 
controlled, or sufficiently controlled, by the great interests of their 
own States to prevent any action being taken that will be hostile 
to those interests. The only control that these gentlemen have any 
fear of is national control. If they can avoid national control, they 
will avoid all control. Nobody suggests that the State of Illinois 
should be given control of the packers, and that the inducement for 
them to control the packers should be a subvention from the people 
of the United States to help them fight hog cholera. Yet that is a 
parallel situation to the one which would be created by this bill. 
The whole thing would be put up to the State legislatures and the 
inducement to the legislatures of those States would be a small sub- 
vention from the Federal Government, which is supposed to be 
more powerful with them than the great industries in those States. 

The amount of money asked for this year for fighting fires 
all over the United States was $1,000,000, and I am asking the State 
Legislature of Pennsylvania for $1,000,000 to fight fires for a two- 
year period. The point I want to leave behind is this, that, as a 
matter of fact, this is not a bill to establish control over the lumber- 
ing industry of the United States in the interest of preventing 
monopoly, but it is a bill which if passed will, in my -judgment, be 



FORESTRY, 31 

the most effective step that could be taken at this time to consolidate 
the monopoly over the lumber supply of the United States into the 
hands of a little group of men on the Pacific coast. Of course, we 
all realize that a bill carrjdng an appropriation of $71,000,000 was 
not intended to pass at this time. It is the same old contest under a 
different name. It is the fight we had with the water-power men, 
oil men, and the coal men. 

Mr. TiNCHEE. If this bill is subject to the criticism that you have 
offered, how do you account for our Forestry Department being 
handled in such a way that they are supporting this measure ? 

Mr, PixcHOT, That is a rather hard question to ask, 

Mr. TiNCHER. I thought that your experience as the head of that 
department and your information on this subject generally would be 
valuable to the conunittee. 

Mr. PixcHOT. Perhaps, if Judge Tincher will let me dodge the 
question, I will answer it in this way : While I was the Forester, a 
certain number of lumbermen came to Washington, and, through 
their representatives, they sat up with me, they held my hand, and 
they told me how good and statesmanlike I was. They finally per- 
suaded me to come out in favor of a tariff on lumber as a means of 
protecting the forests of the United States. 

The Chairman, Thank you, Mr, Pinchot. 

The committee will now adjourn until 10 o'clock to-morrow morn- 
ing. 

(There is printed as follows a letter submitted by Mr, Pinchot, 
which the committee, at a later session, ordered incorporated with 
Mr. Pinchot's remarks,) 

Philadelphia, Pa., January 26, 1921. 
Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen, 

Chairman Committee on Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Haugen : Lest my answer to Mr. Tincher's question at the close of 
my testimony to-day — an answer nuuTe, perhaps, witli too much levity — should 
he misunderstood, I should greatly appreciate it if you would kindly cause this 
letter to be inserted in the hearing at the end of what I had to say. 

No one has or can have a firmer or better founded belief in the character and 
purpose of the men of the Forest Service than I have. I should be deeply con- 
cerned and sorry of the serio-comic anecdote of own past discomfiture should 
be taken to reflect upon them in any way. 

Col. Gz'aves, who as chief of the service, first made a real issue (against the 
vigorous opposition of certain lumbermen) of the policy of public control over 
forest devastation on commercial timberlands, is my close and life-long friend. 
We are whohy at one in principle and dilfer only as to the most effective 
method of working our principle out. 

The Snell bill is a later development, brought forward since Col. Graves 
retired, and, I believe, while he was away. You will doubtless desire to hear 
his views upon it. For reasons set forth in the testimony before you, Col. 
Greeley and I hold radically but sincerely different opinions as to its value and 
effect. I recognize, of course, that his right to his opinion is to be respected 
precisely as much as my own right to mine. 
Sincerely, yours, 

GiFFORD Pinchot. 

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until to- 
morrow, Thursday, January 27, 1921, at 10 o'clock a, m,) 



32 FORESTRY. 

Committee on Agriculture, 

House of Representatives, 
Thursday^ January 27, 1921. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Gilbert N. Haugen 
(chairman) presiding. 
The ChairjMan. We will hear Mr. Kellogg next. 

STATEMENT OE ME. K. S. KELLOGG, CHAIRMAN, THE NATIONAL 
EOEESTRY PROGRAM COMMITTEE. 

Mr. Kellogg. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am the chairman 
of the national forestry program committee. Congressman Snell is 
unable to be here this morning on account of business out of town, 
and he has asked me to present the witnesses in his behalf. In view 
of the very short time that it is possible for you to give us this morn- 
ing, Mr. Chairman, we ask permission to file with the committee 
statements by witnesses upon sections 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of 
this bill. We ask that in order to save discussion. A statement was 
filed here yesterday afternoon by Mr. Elbert H. Baker, representing 
the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, speaking in behalf 
of that organization in favor of this bill, because he could not re- 
main in the city to-day. A statement w^as also filed by Mr. George 
W. Sisson, representing the American Paper & Pulp Association, 
because he could not stay. We also have to ask permission to-day to 
file a statement by Mr. David L. Goodwillie, of Chicago, speaking 
in the name of the Union League Club, of Chicago, and who could 
not remain over to-day. If yqu will p:rant us permission to file these 
statements for the record, we will close the hearings as rapidly as 
we can. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. I think there will be no objection 
to the filing of statements, but you gentlemen must understand that 
this inquiry will take on a broad character and range, and it will 
be necessary for some representatives of the different interests to 
appear later on and give the committee an opportunity to discuss 
the details of the whole proposition. 

Mr. Kellogg. We shall be delighted to appear at any time you 
ask us. 

^.ic. McLaughlin of Michigan. With that understanding I think 
there will be no objection to having the statements filed. 

Mr. Tincher. I have no objection to the filing of the statements 
with the understanding that the parties filing them will be willing 
to appear later on and answer questions. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. Your part in this does not end 
with the filing of statements, because the committee may want more 
information from you later and may ask you to appear. 

Mr. Kellogg. We hope very much that you will do that, Mr. Chair- 
man, We will guarantee that we are at the call of this committee on 
any one of these subjects upon which briefs have been or will be 
filed, and we will feel very much disappointed if you do not call 
upon us. 

As chairman of the committee which prepared this bill, I wish 
to say that we have sought the widest possible discussion of this bill 
upon its merits. We seek only a workable solution of the problems 



FORESTRY. • 33 

which will result in a larger and continued suppl}' of the forest 
products essential to the life of the Nation. 

It is our purpose to give the Agricultural Committee and the 
public the facts, and nothing but the facts, about the timber situation 
in the United States, and the measures which we believe should be 
enacted into law. 

The direct incentive of the preparation of this bill was the discus- 
sion and presentation of facts begun in public addresses at confer- 
ences throughout the United States by the former Chief Forester, 
Col. Graves, and ably continued by his successor, Col. Greeley. 

The first draft of the bill was prepared by the Forest Service at 
the request of the forest conservation committee of the American 
Paper and Pulp Association. The final draft was prepared at a con- 
ference participated in by representatives of the Western Forestry 
and Conservation Association, the American Paper and Pulp Asso- 
ciation, the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the 
American Forestry Association, the National Wholesale Lumber 
Dealers' Association, the Association of the Wood losing Industries 
of the United States, and the American Newspaper Publishers' Asso- 
ciation, all of whom — producers, distributors, and users of forest 
products — found themselves in substantial accordance with the 
recommendations of the Ignited States Forest Service as to the prac- 
tical measures which can and should be instituted to bring about 
continuous forest production of timber throughout the United States 
on all lands chief!}' suitable therefor. 

Since its preparation and announcement, the principle of Federal 
leadership and State and private cooperation carried in this bill, 
which has achieved such notable results in other fields of Federal 
and State activity, has been widely indorsed by chambers of com- 
merce, the Pittsburgh Flood 'Commission, and other organizations 
of public-spirited citizens, including the forestry departments of 22 
States, ranging from New England to the Pacific coast and the 
Gulf of Mexico. I submit for the record a list of a considerable 
number of those organizations. 

(The list referred to is as follows:) 

The following organizations liave indorsed the bill under consideration. H. K. 
15327 : 

State forestry associations of New Yorlv, Ma.ssachnsetts, New Hampshire, 
North Carolina. Louisiana, Maine, Colorado, Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Ten- 
nessee, Kentuclcy, Texas, Connecticut, California, Micliigan. Wisconsin, Minne- 
sota. 

In(Uistrial organizations: National Paper Box IManufactnrers' Association, 
National Box Manufacturers' Associati(»n, American Paper and Pulp Associa- 
tion, American Newspnjier Publisliers' Association, National Lumber ]Mnnu- 
facturers' Association, Eastern Paper Board Manufaeturers" Association. Na- 
tional Paper Trade Association. National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Associa- 
tion, Retail Lumber Dealers' Association of the State of New Yo)-k, Association 
of Wood Using Industries, Michigan Manufacturers' Association, Kentucky 
Manufacturers' Association, Springfield, Mass., Chamber of Commerce, Pitts- 
burgh Flood Connnission. 

Especial letters of indorsement have been received from F. A. Elliott. State 
forester, Oregon: W. T. Morrill. State forester of Colorado: G. B. ISIcDonald, 
State forester Iowa; Col. John H. Wallace, jr., conservation commissioner of 
Alabama : II. B. Miller, State forester of Illinois. 

These are the facts which so far are a matter of record at this 
hearing, and in the time remaining this morning we wish to present 



34 ■ FORESTRY. 

additional evidence and arguments upon the various sections of the 
bilL In doing so we wish to have you give some time to CoL Greeley, 
of the United States Forest Service. I will ask Col. Greeley to 
occupy the first 10 minutes. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kellogg. Col. Greeley, we will 
hear you. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF COL. W. B. GREELEY, FORESTER, 
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE. 

Col. Greeley. Mr. Chairman, since the connection of the Forest 
Service with certain interests who are appearing in support of this 
measure was directly called into question before you yesterday, I 
feel that it is only fair to the committee that the exact standing of 
the United States Forest Service with reference to this measure be 
made absoluely clear. My predecessor, Col. Graves, is here, and I 
will appreciate it if he will correct me if any statments I make on 
this matter are not exact. 

Mr. TiNCHER. In what capacity is he here? 

Col. Greeley. As a forester and as the former chief of the United 
States Forest Service. 

Mr. Tincher. What is his business now? 

Col. Greeley. He is a consulting forester. 

Mr. Tincher. He is not working for the Government now ? 

Col. Greeley. No, sir. 

Mr. Tincher. Whom is he with? 

Col. Greeley. I suggest that you put those questions to Col. 
Graves himself. 

Mr. TiNOHER. I thought it was proper to put it in the record, since 
you have called attention to the fact that he is here. 

Col. Greeley. The experience of the great war brought home to 
this country very sharply the critical situation which confronts it in 
regard to the supply of timber. Thereupon, Col. Graves took up 
the framing of an adequate plan for national action that would meet 
this situation. The principles underlying this plan were published 
over a year ago. Subsequently, in connection with a report made to 
the United States Senate on the 1st of June last, the Forest Service, 
under my direction, reiterated the general points which, in our judg- 
ment, should be incorporated in a national plan of reforestation. 
Now, I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to suggest to this com- 
mittee that in presenting this program to the public we were not act- 
ing in the interest or at the behoof of any group of manufacturers 
or of any other particular group in this country. We were present- 
ing to the public what we believed to be the practical solution of a 
great problem which affects everyone. It affects the farmer most of 
all, because the farmer is the largest user of lumber in this country. 
It directly or indirectly affects almost every class of consumer. We 
put that plan before the country not knowing who would support 
it or who would oppose it. As a matter of fact, it has been sup- 
orted by certain groups of lumbermen, and it has been opposed by 
other groups of lumbermen, and by some very influential lumbermen. 
However, that has made no difference, we have advocated what we 
believed to be the best practical solution of this problem. 



FORESTRY. 35 

Now, in advocating this solution, we have recognized from the out- 
set that some form of control of the method of cutting and otherwise 
using private timberlands is absolutely essential, and we indicated in 
the suggestions contained in the various publications upon this sub- 
ject the necessity of public control of private forest lands as a funda- 
mental to this whole proposition. We put in our program the only 
form of control which we believed to be within the limits of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, and also within the limits of practi- 
cability as a working proposition. 

The bill which is before you now is the outgrowth of these recom- 
mendations made at different times by the Forest Service. The lan- 
guage of the bill is not our exact language. The principles incor- 
jDorated in the bill could be worded in many different ways. Certain 
wording, perhaps, would be more advantageous than the precise lan- 
guage now before you. We are responsible, however, for advocating 
the principles which have been followed in drafting this bill, and on 
that responsibility, I, for one, am perfectly ready to stand as an ac- 
tion taken in the best interests of the entire public. 

Now, let me suggest this to the committee : This bill makes no 
attempt to deal with the problem of distribution of timber. AVhether 
the virgin timber that is still left in the United States is used pri- 
marily for the benefit of the few Southern and Western States which 
contain it or whether it is to be distributed so as to benefit all of the 
wood consumers of the country and whether its price is to be con- 
trolled are big j)roblems in themselves which this bill makes no at- 
tempt to cover. This bill deals rather with the question of producing 
timber, of growing more timber, of having something to utilize when 
our virgin forests are exhausted. I wish to direct the attention of 
the committee to the 326,000,000 acres of land in this country from 
Avhich the virgin timber has been removed. Some of it contains sec- 
ond growth, some of it contains small material, much of it contains 
nothing. However, upon this area the country is dependent for the 
major ])art of any timber that we are going to get in the future. 
These 326,000,000 acres of second-growth and cut-over lands are 
distributed through 40 States. Large quantities of it are in the 
thickly settled industrial States of the East, like Pennsylvania and 
New York, in the Lake States, and in the Southern States. It is 
upon that land that we must depend for our future supply of timber. 
The areas of virgin stumpage still left in the South and West are 
important, certainly, but those areas of virgin timber are going to 
be consumed in no great length of time. For the future supply of 
timber we must look to some rational plan of reforestation of these 
326,000,000 acres which are scattered all through the country, East, 
South, iNorth, and West, and which are so located that the timber 
which can be grown on them will be available to the average con- 
sumer without incurring the enormous cost of transportation across 
the continent. That is the problem to which this bill is directed, 
not to the distribution of the timber still remaining. 

I wish to add this further word upon the point of monopoly which 
w^as brought out yesterday : It is perfectly true that under the very 
liberal grants of public lands and the loose administration of the 
public-land laws, large holdings of timber have been assembled in 
several of our western States under conditions which do favor a 



36 FORESTRY. 

natural monopoly of the remaining areas of virgin timber. That is 
a problem that we may have to deal with in one form or another. 
There are just two ways whereby, in the long run, such possible 
monopoly can be checked: The first is by the extension of public 
forest ownership, and the second is by growing timber so widely and 
generally that no possibility of a timber monopoly can exist. 

This measure before you provides both methods. It aims at the 
extinction of public ownership, first, by placing in the national 
forests every acre of land now under the control of the Federal 
Government which is chiefly valuable for timber production, and, 
secondly, by the purchase of forest areas in accordance with the 
j)Qlicy established by the Weeks Act. This measure also proposes 
the second check on monopolj^, and that is by growing so much 
timber and having it so widely distributed that the possibility of 
its control will disappear. 

I thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. TiNCHER. There are several questions that I want to ask you 
about this matter, but, of course, it is understood that you will be 
here available for the committee. I suppose your testimony this 
morning is directed at the testimony of the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pinchot, the former Chief Forester? 

Col. Greeley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TiKCiiER. I suppose I asked him the question that brought 
on all the trouble, but I was perfectly innocent in it. I wanted to 
know why the ex-Chief Forester and the present Chief Forester 
were so out of accord. As I understood his answer, he did not 
impute any bad motives, but he was simply explaining how you Avere 
liable to be persuaded, as he had been persuaded. 

Col. Greeley. Certainly. 

The Chairman. How much does the bill carry ? 

Col. Greeley. It carries an annual appropriation of $14,000,000. 

The Chairman. In the aggregate? 

Col. Greeley. $14,000,000 annuallv for five years, making a total 
of $70,000,000. 

Mr. Kellogg. It carries $71,250,000. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Col. Greeley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VoiGT. Mr. Kellogg, did you say you were the chairman of the 
committee that prepared this bill? 

Mr. Kellogg. Yes, sir. 

jNIr. '\^)iGT. Does this folder give the names of the committee mem- 
bers? 

Mr. Kellogg. Yes, sir ; on the front page. 

Mr. VoiGT. i think this should go in the record. If there is no 
objection, I Avould like to have the names of these gentlemen who 
constitute the national forestry program committee inserted in the 
record. 

(The matter referred to is as follows :) 

THE NATIONAL FORESTRY PROGRAM COMMITTEE. 

E. T. Allen, Western Forestry and Conservation Associaf on : Phillip W. 
Ayres, Society for Protection New Hampshire Forests; Elbert H. Baker, Amer- 
ican Newspaper Publishers' As.sociation ; Wilson Compton, National I^umlier 



FORESTRY. 37 

Manufacturer-s' Association; Hugh P. Baker, American Paper and Pulp As,socia- 
tion; John Foley, Association of Wood Using Industries; P. S. Ridsdale. Amer- 
ican Forestry Association ; J. Randall Williams, National Wholesale Lumber 
Dealers' Association. 

R. S. Kellogg, chairman ; Warren B. Bullock, secretary. 

Room 1102. 18 East Forty-first Street, New York City. January, 1921. 

Mr. VoiGT. Was this bill framed in the city of Washington? 

Mr. Kellogg. No, sir. 

Mr. VoiGT. Where was it framed ? 

Mr. Kellogg. As I said in my introductory statement, the original 
draft of it was framed last spring by the Forest Service at the re- 
quest of the Forest Conservation Committee of the American Pulp 
and Paper Association. It was discussed with a great many people 
during the season, and the final draft of it was framed at a con- . 
ference in New York on the 15th of October, as stated on the back 
of tlie circular, Tha£ conference was participated in by the organi- 
zations listed on the folder. Col. Greeley also sat in with them, at 
our request, and helped to work it up. 

Mr. VoiGT. I did not get your statement as to what position you ^ 
occupy. 

Mr. Kellogg. I am chairman of this committee. 

Mr. VoiGT. I mean outside of this committee ? 

Mr. Kellogg. Outside of this committee, I am secretary of the 
Newsi^rint Service Bureau, with headquarters at New York City, 
which has nothing to do with this bill. 

The Chairman. Thank j^ou, Colonel, we will now hear Col. Graves. 

STATEMENT OF COL. HENEY S. GRAVES, FORMER CHIEF OF THE 
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. There was some question asked as 
to this witness. 

Col. Graves. Last spring I resigned as Chief of the United States 
Forest Service, after 10 years' service. For a portion of the time 
since then I took a rest which I felt that I had earned. I then set 
up an office in Washington as a consulting forester. Since that time 
I have done forestry work in an advisory capacity for different per- 
sons. I have returned recently from Cuba where I did some forestry 
work in connection with some of the sugar plantations where they 
are cutting off the forests and wasting the timber, preparatory to 
planting cane. I have no connection whatsoever with any concerns 
or individuals that have the slightest interest in this bill, one way 
or the other. 

I am chiefly interested in this measure, however, because it is in 
line with the policy for meeting the forest situation in this country 
which I myself proposed during mv service as chief forester. In 
the winter of 1918 I set forth in various public speeches and in pub- 
lished pamphlets what I believed to be a very urgent situation in 
this country resulting from the continued destruction of our forests. 
And I proposed certain principles whicli seemed to me should underlie 
an adequate national-forest policy. 

One of the new elements in my proposal was the participation of 
llie public in the handling of private forest lands and the establish- 
ment of a system which would give such control or regulation by the 



38 FORESTRY. 

public itself oAer private lands as would prevent the destructive 
processes which have been going on almost unchecked. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. When you speak of the public, do 
you mean the Federal Government ? 

Col. GRA^'Es. I speak of the public generally, without reference at 
the moment to the State or the Federal Government. I would like 
to speak of that difference in a moment. I proposed we should take 
this matter up primarily from the standpoint of land utilization. 
Our forests cover over one-fourth of the area of the country, and the 
manner in which those forests are handled, whether they are to be 
made productive or turned intoi wastes, is a matter of very great 
public concern. I did not introduce into this question of the forest 
policy the questions of any public control over the lumber industry 
or the distribution of lumber. I confined the policy purely to the 
question of maintaining the production of forests. My idea was to 
go back to the raw resource and find a way to insure the production 
of timber on the land which is best suited for that purpose, to keep 
such land productive in order to provide forest products for the 
needs of our people, to protect our watersheds, and in other ways 
to meet the very vital public interests in forests. 

We find that private forests are not being handled in a way to 
keep up production. They are being progressively destroyed. This 
is, in part, due to the failure of private owners to give any considera- 
tion to the question of the condition of the land after cutting. It is 
due in large measure, of course, to the destructive fires, which in 
spite of all our efforts in the last quarter of a century we have not 
yet by an^^ means' mastered. It is perfectly clear to anyone who 
understands the practical problems of handling forests, who knows 
what the situation is in the forests, that private owners will not 
handle this matter on their own initiative without public assistance 
and I believe without public regulation and control. And that is 
the reason why the program which I set forth *in 1918, and why the 
policy proposed here, introduces the element of public regulation. 
Recognition of the fact that private owners can not or will not 
handle this problem is back of this measure which proposes to offer 
liberal cooperation and help to the private owner, but at the same 
time definitely insists that there shall be a public control and regu- 
lation of the forests which will insure continued production on the 
forests. I think that that point should be emphasized, because I 
have found that there are some who can not see in this bill any 
element of public regulation of private forests, and who believe that 
it would be possible under this bill to have the whole forest policy 
degenerate merely into a little added fire patrol in the woods. 

I think that this question of public regulation should be per- 
fectly clear. It was set forth as a policy of the Forest Service yes- 
terday in a most admirable way by Col. Greeley, and if there is any 
misunderstanding about that, I feel that this measure should be 
rewritten so that it is crystal clear. Personally, I have had nothing 
to do with the drafting of this bill, and I am, candidly not satisfied 
with the wording of the first two sections; not because the policy 
which I suggest may not be read into the language, but because there 
is an opportunity to have it misunderstood and to have the public, 
which is to pay the bills, fail to see that they are going to be prop- 



FORESTRY. 39 

erlj protected. When this measure comes up for any serious con- 
sideration by this committee, I should like very much to have an 
opportunity to make some suggestions in regard to its wording. 

Mr, McLaughlin of Michigan. We should be very glad to have 
you come before us. You are going to be in Washington, are you 
not? 

Col. Graves. I expect to be here most of the time. 

Mr. McLaughlin of Michigan. And it will be convenient for you 
to come practically at any time? 

Col. Gra\-es. Yes, sir. May I add that I have been requested to 
represent at this hearing the National Forest Fire Prevention Com- 
mittee ? This is an organization of disinterested citizens from nearly 
all the States created to forward forest-fire prevention in every possi- 
ble way. George D. Pratt, Forest Commissioner of New York, is 
its chairman; Ilarris G. Reynolds, secretaiy of the Massachusetts 
Forestry Association, its secretary. This committee favors the gen- 
eral principles back of the Snell bill. 

The Chairman. Thank you Col. Graves. 

Mr. Pack. Mr. Chairman. I represent the American Forestry As- 
sociation, and I would like your permission to file a statement, and 
I would also like to make a statement with reference to the attitude 
of the public in regard to these matters. I do not represent any of 
these interests. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be so ordered. 

Mr. Kellogg. We have also statements on sections 7 and 8 by Mr. 
William L. Hall that we wish to put in. 

The Chairman. Have you any other witnesses present to testify? 

Mr. Kellogg. They are here, but they will now have to file their 
staements. 

Mr. Philip W. Ayres. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a state- 
ment on behalf of the Society for Protection of New Hampshire 
Forests. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the statements will be incor- 
porated. 

(Here follow tlie statements submitted:) 

STATEMENT OF MB. ELBERT H. BAKER, REPRESENTING AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUB- 
LISHERS' ASSOCIATION. 

I consider it a great privilege to present to your honorable body the views 
and the needs of the members of the American Newspaper Publishers' Associa- 
tion, which I have the honor to represent, and to present as well what I believe 
to be tlie views and tlie needs of the 2,500 daily newispapers and the 15,000 
weekly papers in the United States. 

The newspapers consume about 60 per cent of the total ground wood pulp 
and about 17 per cent of the sulphite produced in the United States and Canada. 
The remainder of this ground wood and sulphite takes on a thousand forms in 
the manifold uses to which this plastic material may be put. 

It will be evident at a glance that the newspapers published in the United 
States consume several times the total amount of wood pulp and sulphite pro- 
duced in this country. This means the annual cutting over of vast areas of 
spruce and other pulp woods for this single use alone. We have seen within 
the lifetime of many here present such increasingly rapid diminuthm of the 
area of pulp timber in the States east of the Rocliy Mountains as to foreshadow 
the complete destruction of the basic raw material of the publishing industry, 
and that in fewer years than it is at all cheering to contemplate. The problem 
of print paper supply has for years had a large place in the thought and the 
plans of the newspaper publislier, but we as publishers seem to have needed to 



40 FOKESTRY. 

be placed face to face with the startling: increase in print paper consumption 
and the unparalleled increase in the other manifold uses of wood pulp caused 
by the World War to realize fully the acuteness of our situation. The ab- 
normally high prices of print paper and the difficulties experienced by many 
publishers in getting supply at all during this period will not soon be forgotten. 

P^or our gravest difficulties in the matter of supply, relief is in sight, owing 
to lessened consumption, Init we are keenly alive to the fact that every user of 
wood in whatever form is being brought inexoraldy face to face witli rapia 
diminution, if not actual extinction of supply within a reasonal)le zone of 
transportation. 

Even a superficial study of the situation shows the number of industries in 
the United States in which wood in some form or other is the basic raw 
material to be vast indeed. It is, therefore, with the keenest interest and 
with the most urgent appeal to your committee that the American Newspaper 
Publishers' Association joins with the many other organizations represented 
here to-day in asking for the bill now before you your earnest consideration 
and as promptly as may be its enactment by the Congress into law. 

I may add that the American Newspaper Publishei's' Association very strongly 
approves the basic principles of the Snell bill. We greatly prefer that the 
Department of Agriculture lie authorized to proceed luider the Snell bill, taking 
the holdings of timber as they now stand for a starting point, rather than the 
Capper bill, introduced in the last session of the Congress. We approve the 
Snell bill, as it takes the present status quo of ownership and management as 
its starting point. We believe tliat*far speedier action may be had, that .lustice 
may be done every interest, private and governmental alike, and tliat the im- 
portant results proposed may be more pi"omptly and more efficiently had under 
the Snell bill. We believe the results that may ultimately be realized are so 
vitally important that every State and every individual can well afford to pay 
his share of this great undertaking. 

We are not speaking solely for ourselves as business men. althouirh I may 
add that, by the latest compilation of the Department of Commerce, the print- 
ing and publishing industry is the fifth in value of products, fifth in number of 
wage* earners, and second in value added by manufacture. We are speaking 
rather for every individual in thi.s broad land, because each one of us is, day 
by day and every day, a user of wodd in some of its varied forays. 

One of tlie most forward-looking act^ of the Congre.s.s was the creation 
within the Department of Agriculture of the Depaitment of Forestry, and one 
of the strongest recommendations that can be urged for the bill under considera- 
tion is that it is very largely based upon the careful study of Col. Greeley and 
the very able staff under him, and that the bill carries Col. Greeley's unquali- 
fied indorsement. 

The need for this legislation has been admirably summarized by Mr. Harding 
in a speech to newspajiermen at Marion, Ohio, August 13, 1020: 

" It is obvious that we nmst have a forest policy which shall make us self- 
reliant once more. We ought to be looking ahead to produce our timber for 
our pulp- wood needs and also our timber for our lumber needs. Forest con- 
servation is a necessary accon)paniment to printing expansion and a matter of 
coninion concern to nil the people. 

" Planning for the future with added protection of our present forests from 
fire is a matter of deep concern to publishers in particular but to all of con- 
striictive America as well." 

Respectfully submitted. 

The Forest Products Committee of the 

American Newspaper Publishers' Association, 
By Elbert H. Baker, Chairmon. 

statement of DAVID L. GOODWILLIE, CHICAGO, ILL., AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE 
AGRICLTLTURAL committee, WASHINGTON, .lANUARY 2 7, ON THE SNELL BILL (H. Vv. 
15327) ; SUBJECT, "FORESTRY." 

I come to you, gentlemen, from quite a different section of country than 
does Mr. Allen. He comes from a lumber-producing territory ; I come from 
a lumber-consuming territory. I come not as a timber owner but as a plain 
citizen; and though a consumer of forest products I heartily agree with Mr. 
Allen as to the Snell bill and its provisions. Though a buyer of lumber and 
a large consumer, I am proud to know Mr. Allen's constituents and can not 
share the opinion expressed by another as to their methods or character. As 



FORESTRY. 41 

myself i'ifthSw^^^^" ^™"^' ^^ ^^^^^^' ^ ^^""^ obliged and am glad to express 
I come from a section and a State that consumes more lumber, I think, 
than any other like area, and from a section that produces little or no lumber, 
out tnat has within its confines acres on acres that are not fit for any other 
puipose than forestry. As an economic measure and as a necessity my section 
and the people I represent want forestry made immediately practicable. 

1 represent the National As.sociation of Box ManufactuVers, an organiza- 
tion including m its membership 1,300 concerns manufacturing wood boxes and 
using in the industry fully 15 per cent of lumber manufactured. I also repre- 
sent the Michigan Manufacturers' Association, whose membership comprises 
practically all the industrial concerns in that State, making the second largest 
State organization of its kind in the country. At this time I would like to 
put into the record a telegram showing my authority to represent this JNlichigan 
Manufacturers' Association. 

^ ^ ^ Detroit, Mich., January 22, 1921. 

D. L. GOODWILLIE, 

651 Otis Building, Chicago, III.: 
Please represent the Michigan Manufacturers' Association at the hearing on 
the Snell bill. We are very much in favor of this bill and believe that if it 
IS passed it will materially assist in further development in Michigan. 

John L. Lovett, 
Manager Michigan Manufacturers' Association. 

This aiichigan Manufacturers' Association comprises in its membership 
largely men who are not timber owners or lumbermen; but this organization 
is unqualifiedly in favor of the Snell bill, as you observe. 

Particularly am I proud to represent through its public affairs committee 
the Union League Club of Chicago, a club devoted largely to the developmenr 
of the better things in national as well as civic life, having a niembership of 
3,200 or more men representative of our largest business and professional 
interests, and men very prominent in the life of Chicago. As a manufacturer 
and user of box lumber for over 30 years, my concern is still operating plants 
in Michigan and Wisconsin. I know, as do you, gentlemen, the immediate 
need of an increased timber supply; that this need is quite imperative, and 
that the growing scarcity of lumber and boxwood — second growth and small 
timber — is not only apparent but threatens within a few short years the life 
of my industry. Notwithstanding .substitutes, and they have been persistently 
numerous, the demand for our product increases yearly. However, I am noE 
interested in this Snell bill and the subject of forestry for personal or selfish 
reasons, but I am from a more unselfish and broader viewpoint. 

If it ^yere for personal and selfish reasons, I could tell you in detail not only 
the needs of forestry for my industry, but how much the manufacturers of 
Michigan, as well as all the Central States, dei>end indirectly, if not dir(>ctly, 
on an increased production of wood, and, therefore, on the making of a prac- 
tical forestry program. Suffice it to say that never in the history of building 
has there been a greater demand for homes and houses than there is to-day. 
This week the housing interests ;n-e holding a conference in Washington to 
study and, if possible, solve the house and home building question. But repre- 
senting my club, I come before you from a much broader standpoint than that 
of any personal interest. In our city we ai;e aroused to the necessity of the 
occasion. We are studying forestry seriously, hoping by a series of conferences 
and addresses by Col. W. B. Greeley, the chief forester, and others to enlighten 
and educate our people in the Central West on the subject and show them the 
importance of cooperation and immediate action. We will have Col. Greeley 
liefore our Chicago Association of Commerce, the Union League Club. Chicago 
University, Northwestern University ; and with him we will spread the gospel 
of forestry by pictures, papers, and addresses through our schools, and, with the 
cooperation of the press, we expect to tie up the ends so that Illinois and possi- 
bly other near-by States as a result will make forestry not only possible but 
workable with'n the State. I am told there are 81,000 000 acres of land that 
is untillable in our country. Surely this land should be at work. A recent 
State survey of Illinois shows that my State has nearly 6,000,000 acres of land, 
none of it good tillable land, and a large part of it fit oidy for and should be 
used for reforesting. 

This idle land, whether in Illinois or elsewhere, is a burden., It is like the 
unruly or incorrigible boy in your community. He is a liability until you set 



42 FORESTRY. 

him right. Why not put this idle hiiul to work at once and use it for wliat it 
is best adapted? This recent survey in Illinois not only goes extensively into- 
this subject of idle land but urges that they be put to use immediately. At 
present they are a lialiility ; use thenr in reforesting and we turn a burden, a 
liability, into an asset. Situated as we are in the Central West and bringing 
our lumber into that territory for 2,000 miles, more or less, we are especially 
with the advanced freight rates, paying in transportation a penalty that alone 
is a fearful tax on the consumer and the community — a tax that could better 
be used within the State to promote forestry and the insuring of a supply of 
lumber. My club is anxious to create this sentim'ent in making forestry prac- 
ticable in Illinois and the other neigliboring States by this campaign of educa- 
tion outlined above. W^ith my club, I am definitely interested in the Snell bill, 
as are these other organizations I represent. They favor it and indorse it fully. 
We consider the Snell bill the first and only bill di-afted that looks workable 
or practicable. While we are neither altruists nor idealists, I feel we must be 
alert to tlie situation. We must see the immediate necessity of action. There is 
still time to create great forests in Wisconsin, Michigan, and even in Illinoi-s, and 
in many other States by the use of these nontillable lands and by the State 
taking over lands that may revert to it for nonpayment of taxes, as well as the 
Federal Government by purchase of lands. 

Less-favored countries in Euroiie long ago had this vision of duty as well as 
opportunity and are doing the job successfully. Should we not at once begin to 
provide for those who follow us and who should enjoy not oidy the forests as 
forests but who will need the products of the forests as commodities? We hear 
much of the ultimate consumer, and my plea this morning is for immediate action 
on this or some equally good forestry measure as a duty if not an obligation to 
the ultimate consumer down the line. I beg of you, gentlemen, not only that our 
present timber, whether in national or in individual holdings, be amply safe- 
guarded but protected from lire and all public hazard ; that we see the situation 
seriously, unselfishly, and by cooperation with the Federal Government our 
States may be urged to provide wood and lumber through the use of nontillable 
lands for forestry purposes. Our obligation is apparent ; our duty is innnediate. 
Let us no longei- think forestry and theorize on economics, but let us make 
forestry, through the vrorkin-; • of this Snell bill, practical and immediately so. 

In conclusion, I quote from The Americas, a magazine published by the 
National City Bank of New York, the following: 

" This is a tremendously big and important national problem. It includes 
almost every factor that bears on great economic questions. The rights of the 
public and of private holders are intertwined at every point, and the only abso- 
lutely certain statement to be made about it is that the present policy is destruc- 
tive to the bes't interests of the country and nnist be improved. Some questions 
in national economy are subject to almost indefinite postponement. The forestry 
problem is not one of them." 

I thank you very much, gentlemen. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. SISSON, EEPKESENTING THE AMERICAN PAPER AND PULP 

ASSOCIATION. 

The American Paper and Pulp Association, the parent association of the paper 
industry in the United States, desires to be recorded in favor of the Snell 
forestry bill, not alone because the paper industry is dependent for its future 
existence on a continuous supply of raw material from the forests, but because 
this association believes it best for the Nation as a whole. 

While in the last analysis the problem of the paper supply is the problem of 
the timber supply, it would be noted that the manufacture of paper is but one of 
the many methods of forest utilization and that the total demand for timber 
for other purposes exceeds many times that for the making of paper, this 
industry using only about 8 per cent of the annual cut of timber. 

The paper industry touches so closely the daily lives of the people and 
reaches such a condition of indispensability in our modern life that we must 
approach the problems of its raw material supply with a strong consideration 
for the public interest involved and with a determination that our efforts in 
the interests of the public shall be so wisely directed that no minor consideration 
or controversial attitude may interfere with a successful result. 

In this spirit the American Paper and Pulp Association approves the policy 
now proposed because it appears to be a fair adjustment of the respective rights 
of the timberland owner, the manufacturer, the converter, and consumer of 
forest products, which latter is the general public. 



rOEESTRY. 43 

The relation of the paper industry to forestry is being daily realized as more 
and more vital. With the great sums involved in paper manufacturing plant 
investments, the paper industry is willing to do more than its share toward 
providing a future supply of raw material. But the public must do its part- 
protect its own forests from losses by fire and must not impose upon the timber- 
land owner such conditions of taxation and operation that his only salvation is 
deforestation. All he asks is a chance to reforest. We believe this bill properly 
apportions the task between Federal and State Governments and private owner. 

Speaking for the manufacturers of pulp and paper, let me give assurance of 
our entire readiness to assume obligation and render full measure of service in 
the practical execution of a program that will be continent wide in its scope, all- 
embracing as to wood-using industries, and dedicated in its la«t analysis to the 
permanent service of all the people. 

Geo. W. Sisson, Jr., 
President American Paper and Pulp Association 

January 26, 1921. 

statement of mr. l. f. kneipp, assistant forester united states forest 

SERVICE. 

Disregarding the national forests, national parks, and other special forms 
of reservation, the United States at the present time owns or controls approxi- 
mately the following acreage of land in the continental United States, exclusive 
of Alaska : 

Acres. 

Unreserved and unappropriated 200, 320, 128. 00 

For military reservations 491,' 886. 50 

For naval purposes , 13,087.58 

Ilevested or pending revestment (approximately) 2,700,000.00 

For marine hospital services 28,560.70 

Agricultural experiment stations 49, 166. 25 

Indian purposes, allotted and unallotted lands 71,398,730.00 

Total .. 275, 001, 059. 03 

A great deal of this land bears timber, and its highest use would be for 
the permanent production of timber. At present it is not being handled with 
that purpose in view. The intent of sections 10, 11. and 12 of the liill under 
consideration is to bring under one management all of the timbered lauds 
owned by the Government of the United States. 

The country has reached a stage in its national existence where the con- 
servation of its forest resources is a matter of imperative necessity. One evi- 
dence of the fact is the purchase by the Nation of 1,844,465 acres" of forested 
land, at a cost of more than $10,000,000. Further and much larger expendi- 
tures for the same purpose are now recognized as inevitable. 

This situation acutely emphasizes the necessity for proper care of the forest 
lands which still remain in the possession of the Nation. Every acre saved from 
alieng^tion or denudation represents a future saving of public funds which 
otherwise will have to be devoted to the repurchase of lands of which the Gov- 
ernment is now possessed or of other lands of equal forest value. Every acre 
saved is $5 to $50 saved. 

Our national-forest policy first took form 30 years ago, and was definitely 
crystalized into a workable program 23 years ago. Notwithstanding this fact, 
there is still a large acreage of land in Government control which is far more 
valuable for forestry than for any other permanent public purpose, but which 
is not in the national forests nor managed primarily with a view to the per- 
manent preservation of its foresf value. It would be a stroke of real economy 
to give it the status which it inevitably must receive. 

The advantages of such an arrangement are obvious. First, the cost of 
managing the Nation's forests would be reduced by the elimination of over- 
head and field organizations which now perform rather comparable functions 
within their respective territories, which frequently adjoin and differ only in 
status; second, the production of timber and the protection of watershed values 
would be of primary, if not paramount, importance rather than incidental or 
negligible as at present; and, third, the relation of the Nation's forest to the 
economic or industrial problems relating to forest products would be better 
correlated or coordinated under one management than under several with 
differing objectives. (Present map.) A map of the United States will support 
the statement just made. 



44 FORESTRY. 

The close relationship between the large Indian reservations and the national 
forests is at once apparent. In many conspicuous instances very important 
bodies of timber or watersheds lie partly within a national forest and partly 
within an Indian reservation. The superior advantages of a common plan of 
management are, in such cases, obvious beyond argument. Much of the un- 
appropriated public land of timber value lies as a fringe around the edges of the 
national forests. The valuable timbered lands which have become revested in 
the United States lie in or adjacent to national forests. 

The flrst step in the movement proposed would be a preliminary reconnaissance 
of the Government lands. The areas of present or potential value for timber 
production having thus been determined a more detailed and analytical study 
would then be made, forest values being weighed against other economic values. 
Detailed reports covering all lands found to be chiefly valuable for forest pur- 
poses would then be submitted to the National Forest Reclamation Commission 
for classification under the act. 

The appropriation of $250,000 per annum for five years proposed by section 10 
of the act is to cover the cost of this work. Uncertainty regarding the acreage, 
character, and distribution of the lands requiring examination renders an ac- 
curate estimate of cost out of the question. In all probability the appropriation 
proposed would amply cover all costs of examination and appraisal. 

Every public or private interest, would be adequately safeguarded by the ar- 
rangement proposed by the act. The three executive departments which deal 
extensively with the public lands are the Departments of War, Interior, and 
Agriculture. The Secretaries of these three departments are members of the 
eonunission. The Senate is represented by two members and the House by two 
members. The powers conferred by the act are thus vested in a commission 
where the legislative and executive branches of the Government are almost 
equally represented and where each interested department has a voice. 

There has been no systematic canvass of the timber resources of the lands 
which would be affected by the proposed measure and reliable data are lacking. 
Statistics showing area, volume, or value of the timberlands, therefore, are esti- 
mates, pure and simple. On an estimate basis it is believed that the acreage 
which will be affected by the bill would be approximately as follows : 

Acres. 

Unreserved and unappropriated land, exclusive of Alaska 4, 000, 000 

Military, naval, and other special reservations 100, 000 

Unallotted lands in Indian reservations 5,287,000 

Revested lands 1, 500, 000 

In other words, approximately 11,000,000 acres of land containing between . 
75,000,000,000 and 100,000,000,000 feet of valuable timber, worth to-day more 
than $150,000,000, would reuire consideration by tlie National Forest Reserva- 
tion Commission should the pending bill be enacted into law. 

The extent of tlie equities held by Indians in unallotted timber lauds witliin 
Indian reservations is rather indeterminable, because of the wide variation in 
treaties and the purposes and provisions of acts or proclamations setting lands 
aside for reservation purposes. Much of the acreage of land within Indian "reser- 
vations involves Indian equities which would have to be liquidated should tlie 
classification by the National Forest Reservation Commission become final and 
the lands be embraced within national forests. Equities requiring liquidation 
also exist in connection with lands revested in the United States. It would be 
within the province of the National Forest Reservation Commission to determine 
and to recommend to Congress measures for the liquidation of such equities. 

In connection with the liquidation of equities consideration should be given 
to the fact that under National Forest administration the lands would yield 
large revenues which would materially offset required expenditures of public 
funds or which in the discretion of Congress could be applied directly to the 
liquidation of equities, thus materially reducing or perhaps totally eliminating 
the need for appropriation of public moneys. 

In the case of Indian lands full and immediate liquidation of equities is 
neither necessary nor desirable. An arrangement whereby payment of the 
amount due could be distributed over a long period of years in amounts ade- 
quate to the needs of the Indians involved would, in many cases, be the pref- 
erable method of compensation. Such arrangement would permit the applica- 
tion of receipts from the sale of the resources of the land in settlement of the 
equities without imposing a hardship upon the holders thereof. 



rORESTRY. 45 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES LATHROP PACK, PRESIDENT AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSO- 
CIATION. JANUARY 2", 1921. 
t 

I speak for the American Forestry Association, which represents the interest 
of the people of the United States in forestry. The people are more vitally 
concerned with the management of the forests, their protection, and in the 
provisions for perpetuating them tlian are the timberland owners, timber manu- 
facturers, paper and pulp manufacturers, or the wood industries, or the forest- 
ers who are employed in them. I do not have to point out to this committee 
why this is so, because, as you so well know. It is the people who pay the State 
and national taxes for securing and maintaining State and national forests, 
and who just as directly pay the high and still higher costs due to the decrease 
in the supply of the products of the forests. 

Vrhen you consider the provisions of the Snell bill, therefore, a large part of 
your consideration of the measures proposed must be based on how the public 
feels towai-d them. If you do not know what this feeling is. let me tell you: 
Our association is in contact — and close contact — with the public in every part 
of the United States. The people are now giving more attention to the question 
of the forests and what they mean to the prosperity of the country than they 
have ever done in all the previous history of the United States. During the 
last year a great educational movement in relation to the value of the forests 
has swept from one end of this country to the other, and the people have re- 
sponded to this by taking more interest in legislative matters than they have 
ever done before. Organizations of all character in State after State have gone 
on record as demanding from their State governments adequate forest policies, 
and I do not exaggerate when I say that the people of the United States are 
practically a unit in demanding that Congress take some definite action with 
the least "possible delay in order to provide for proper fire protection of forest 
lands, for the reforestation of cut-over lands, and for the regrowth of forests 
everywhere on lands unsuited to agriculture. 

Gentlemen, I do not wish to Imply in the slightest degree that what I am 
going to say is a threat. It is not. It is simply a plain statement of fact : If the 
people of the United States do not get constructive action by Congress on this 
forestry problem. Congress is certainly going to hear from them. Look for a 
moment on how the public has been affected during the last few years by this 
situation. One of the greatest problems of the day is the housing question. 
Lumber and other forest products enter prominently into the erection of homes. 
The high cost of these products has undoubtedly retarded building in every 
section of our country. We are enlightened. We read voluminously, and we 
have had to pay, due "to the increased prices of paper, twice as much for read- 
ing matter as we paid a few years ago, due to the depleted supplies of wood 
pulp. 

Figure, if you will, the reason for increased prices of almost everything of 
what the average person uses, and in those figures you will have to give as one 
of the reasons for the increased cost the fact that the wood used in making or 
transporting them has increased very greatly in price. 

This is a period of high taxes and unanimous complaint, because taxes are 
high. Naturally, Congress must reduce the cost of running the Government, 
and, naturallv. "the people expect Congress to cut down taxes wherever it is 
po.ssible to do" so, and any plea for appropriations which increases our taxes is 
met. of course, with the "statement that Congress must economize. This is all 
vei-y well and cood business; but it is not good business, nor is it well, to over- 
look appropriations for constructtive measures which will save the people a 
o-reat deal more than the ai)propriations or their taxes required, to pay for such 
appropriations. The cheapest and the best and the quickest way of reducing 
the prices of lumber, pulpwood. and other products of the forests is to increase 
the supply, and the onlv wav to increase the supply is by passing such legislation 
as we are here requesting you to pass. Let me say that I have it on good 
•uithoritv that the incominii administration is going to look very favorably, 
indeed on this proposed legislation and to say further that if your committee 
recommends for passage the bill which is now before you that I believe you 
will be supported bv the Senate and House. Let me say further and finally 
that if YOU do this "the people of the United States will be with you and will 
'■■ive vou credit that is due you for a piece of legislation which, year after year 
Tn the future, will save the country many, many millions of dollars more than 
the amount required to provide for an adequate forest policy. 

32002—21 4 



46 FORESTRY. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY COL. HENRY S. GRAVES. 

Section 5 provides for forest investigations of two classes, intended to fur- 
nish the scientific basis, first, for the growing of timber, and, second, for its full 
and effective utilization. The appropriation of $1,000,000 should be divided 
about equally between them. 

Forest experiment station. — Investigations of the first class are an essential 
part of a national-forestry program, because they will substitute knowledge for 
opinion in the management of our forests. They must, if the present indicates 
future requirements, give the scientific basis for increasing present growth 
of 6,000,000,000 cubic feet to the 25,000,000,000 we use. These investigations 
must furnish the technical knowledge for the reforestation of 81,000,000 acres 
of waste forest land, for increasing the production on 245,000,000 acres now 
only partially productive, and for working out methods of cutting which will 
leave productive 137,000,000 acres of remaining virgin timber. In short, they 
must furnish the basis for foresti-y on an area twice that of all Europe, ex- 
clusive of prewar Russia, and on an area of waste forest lands alone equal to 
that of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, and 
Portugal. 

Success in reforestation timber growing and protection will depend largely 
upon technical knowledge, obtainable in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost, 
only through forest investigattions. European experience and our own show 
conclusively that such work can be conducted most efliciently from forest 
exi^eriment stations just as similar woi-k for agriculture can from agricultural 
experiment stations. Such stations, manned by trained observers, try out on 
a small and comparattively inexpensive scale under close observation varying 
methods of reforestation, jind of cutting timber, eliminate the unsuccessful, and 
demonstrate those which are effective. Investigations afford the only economi- 
cal and practical method of preventing large-scale costly mistakes, also serious 
in delaying production. 

European foresters deal with 25 tree species, mainly with seven — a single 
pine, one spruce, one fir, one larch, one birch, and two oaks ; our investigations 
must cover 495, of which 125 are of especial commercial importance. We must 
deal with wide variations of climate, soil, and topography, and with an almost 
endless number of combinations of species requiring corresponding variations in 
forest management. Forest experiment stations should answer conclusivelj'^ for 
these widely varying conditions in all of the important forest regions such 
questions as: What trees can and should be grown? How should the nursery 
stock of each be produced and how and when planted? How should different 
timber stands be cut so that natural reforestation of desirable species will 
follow promptly and make artificial planting unnecessary? What yields may 
be expected as a basis for business plans and management policy? How may 
poorly stocked, cut-over, or partly devastated lands be converted into fully pro- 
ductive, rapidly growing stands of desirable species? What methods and species 
should be used in replacing stands killed by such diseases as chestnut blight? 
What forest management is necessary for effective regulation of stream flow for 
irrigation and to prevent erosion? Finally, a wide series of investigations 
should make for improved fire protection. 

Some progress has already been made, substantial progress for the small force 
available. In the East the work has largely been general in character, and has 
now reached the stage where further progi'ess must be made through intensive 
studies possible only at forest experiment stations. In the West national forest 
requirements led to the establishment of five small experiment stations, all now 
practically discontinued through reduced appropriations. These stations have 
proved invaluable in supplying a sound technical basis for national forest prac- 
tice. While for the country most progress has been made in developing methods 
of artificial planting, a large opportunity remains for refinement of methods to 
give better results and reduce costs, and on many species no work has been 
done. The development of proper methods of cutting, even where it has gone 
farthest, is still in a pioneer stage ; practically nothing has been done as a basis 
for fire protection ; and, finally, almost all of "the work on the fundamental laws 
of tree association and growth on which our entire system of forest management 
must eventually rest is ahead. To support the national forestry program ade- 
quately the work should be revived at the five western stations and five eastern 
stations should be established. ^ 

A northeastern station should cover the problems of New England, where 
5,500,000 acres are now an unproductive waste ; 8,000,000 acres grow nothing 



FORESTRY. 47 

but fuel wood ; and the remainder of its 25,000,000 acres of forested land only 
a part of what it could and should, as well as of eastern New York. The north- 
eastern pulp industry should be released from dependence upon Canada for one- 
fourth its pulp wood by solving the problems of growing spruce forests. An 
additional group of problems centers in the hardwood and pine forests, witli 
New England now importing at least one-third of its lumber and New York 
probably more. 

A second station should deal with the hardwood and coniferous forests of 
the Alleghenies in Pennsylvania and adjacent States, both commercial forests 
and farm wood lots, which for Pennsylvania can not now supply lumber for 
Pittsburgh. 

The third station should demonstrate hardwood production in the Appalachian 
Mountains, the steep productive slopes of which nuist in the future largely 
supply the bulk of our high-grade, valuable hardwood timber for the entire 
country. 

The fourth station should cover the problems of the southern pine belt, during 
the past 25 years one of the principal soiirces of general-purpose timber for 
our largest markets. The pine area alone, not considering cypress and hard- 
wood, is greater than the forest area of prewar France, Germany, and Austria. 
Twenty-three and a half million acres of waste forest land must be reforested, 
and in addition to timber growing important naval stores and combined grazing 
and timber-production problems must be solved. 

The fifth eastern station must enable the Lake States to reforest their 
20,000,000 aci'es of waste white pine and other forest land and make fully 
productive 26,000,000 acres additional, so that they can supply at least their 
own lumber and pulp requirements. 

The 61,000,000 acres of Rocky Mountain forests of diversified altitudinal, 
climatic, and timber conditions require the reestablishment of three stations : 
In the inland empire for the western white pine and larch-fir forests, in Colorado 
for the lodgepole pine and Engelmanu spruce stands, and in Arizona for the 
western yellow pine forests of the Southwest. Except in the North the region is 
not even now self-supporting in timber production and faces development 
certain to increase demand. Both timber production and the regulation of 
stream fiow for ii'rigation of agricultural lands must be provided. 

Two stations are neetled for California, Washington, and Oregon, containing 
more than half of the remaining timber of the United States ; a California 
station for the sugar, western yellow pine, and redwood forests and for 
chaparral management to prevent erosion and regulate stream flow for the 
highly developed agricultural land of southern California, and a Pacific North- 
west station for the Douglas fir forests and those of hemlock and Sitka spruce 
extending into southeastern Alaska, which should in the future rival the 
Scandinavian forests as a source of pulp and paper. Exclusive of Alaska 
6,500,000 acres of devastated lands must be reforested and methods of cutting 
developed for 40,000,000 acres of remaining virgin timber. 

The allotments for the proposed stations should vary from $30,000 to .$50,000 
and average $42,500. A group of problems such as seed tests, effect of light, 
heat, and moisture on seedling growth, and various microscopic studies, conmion 
tq all regions, should be centered at one laboratory, which together with a lim- 
itetl number of specialists, necessary supervision, overhead expenses, and eco- 
nomic studies such as the timber taxation and tiinber insurance investigations 
covered in the proviso of section 5 of the bill, would require $75,000, the remain- 
der of the $500,000 allotment for investigations of the first class. For an area 
exceeding 460,000,000 acres of widely diversified forests this total, which is only 
a little more than one-tenth of a cent per acre per year, is not excessive, neither 
is it excessive in comparison with expenditures in other countries. Prewar ex- 
penditures of Germany, Switzerland, and Java for similar investigations, on 
the basis of the forest area of the United States, were at the rate of about 
$1,500,000. $3,000,000, and $3,700,000. respectively. 

Forest experiment stations will answer the innumerable questions arising 
now and which will arise more and more frequently in the future, of how the 
different phases of timber growing in different regions with different species 
and combinations of species can best be conducted. They will establisli on a 
firm foundation the scientific basis for timber production in the United States 
and by actual demonstration of successful meth(tds go a long way in stinudating 
a production sufficient to meet our requirements for wood. They will help to 
bring about the best use of a forest area twice that of all Europe outside of 
Russia in the production of materials which affect directly or indirectly our 



48 FORESTRY. 

entire p()i)u!ntion and which are essential to liigh standards of living. They 
will lielp to make possible a forest industi-y which like asriciiltnre is basic to 
all other industries. The work can not be started too soon, because for numer- 
ous problems many years are required to secure conclusive results. 

Timhcr taxation and timber insurance. — Investigations of timber taxation 
and timber insurance are covered under a proviso of section 5 of the bill. 
Large-scale production of timber on privately-owned lands is absolutely depend- 
ent upon working out an equitable, satisfactory form of timber taxation law. 
Present forms of taxation encourage depletion and discourage the growing of 
timber. An annual tax is assessed on a crop which requires from 25 to 75 or 
even more years to mature, and when interest on annual taxes is compounded 
to the time the crop is harvested it raises serious financial questions for the 
private owner. To this must be added iincertainty as to both future assess- 
ments and the rate of taxation with the prospect of increases. While timber 
taxation is a function of State government, the Federal Government can through 
investigation, assist materially in the development of more satisfactory meth- 
ods. The effects of existing State timber tax laws should be studied in coopera- 
tion with the States and an elTort made to work out laws which will require 
timber to bear its fair share of the tax burden and at the same time encourage 
the growing of timber rather than the devastation of forest lands. 

It is not now possible in the United States to obtain insurance upon -standing 
timber or growing forests. Losses from tire or disease now^ fall entirely vipon 
the individual owner and under many conditions the hazard is so great as to 
be a material factor in discouraging timber growing. Insurance offers the 
oj))iortunity to pool losses now possible in the case of other forms of property. 
While the forest insurance must be developed largely by private initiative, in- 
vestigation by the Federal Government can be made of material help in the pro- 
motion of this important aid to timber growing by private owners. 

.^nUITIOX.M. STATE.MEiXT UY K. S. KKLLOGU. 

! 

Section 3 of the Snell Iiill provides for a survey of the forest resources and 
a census of the timber i-equirements of the United States : 

" That the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service and in coop- 
eration with the various States, organizations of timber users, owners of timber- 
lands, and other agencies, is hereby authorized and directed to make a survey 
of the forest resources of the United States to determine the quantity, location, 
availability, and suitability for various uses of each class or species of timber; 
to determine the approximate area, location, condition, and productive capacity 
of the land chiefly valuable for timber growth and not required for other pur- 
poses : to ascertain the yearly requirements as- to kinds and quantities of timber 
of each State and important wood-using industry ; and to obtain such related 
information as in the pulcrment of the Secretary of Agriculture may be neces- 
sary to carry out the provisions of this act." 

An inventory is the first requisite in any business undertakinrr. Sound 
financing and capable management are impossible without stock taking, and 
inventories must be periodically revised. 

A forest inventory and a census of timber requirements are fundamental to 
any adequate plan for forest production and utilization. The need is so obvious 
that no argument should be necessary to support the request for them. 

We must find out what we have, where it is. how fast it is growing, how rap- 
idly it is being used, and what we might have if all forest soil were put to work. 

On none of these points is our present information accurate in character or 
quantity. We know in a general way that the area of land in the United States 
suitable only for timber growth — about 20 per cent of the total — is sufficient in 
amount and diversified enough in kind and location to produce in the course of 
time all the timber we need if forestry methods are applied to it — but our 
information goes little further than this; it is wholly insufficient for the pur- 
poses of practical working plans. 

We are told that there is no other material on earth so good as hickory for 
vehicle manufacture, yet we do not know enough about the present supply, the 
requirements of the industi-y, nor how to produce a future supply to enable us 
to tackle the problem with any assurance of success. The hickory users have 
been urging the seriousness of the situation upon the Government for a dozen 
years, but all that has been accomplished is an improvement in the grading 
"rules for the finished product, based upon tests of the physical properties 



FORESTRY. 49 

of the material. No progi'ess has been made toward providing a permanent 
supply. 

We are using 125 pounds of paper per capita yearly in the United States, and 
our pulpwood supply is rapidly dwindling, but no one knows how much we 
have nor where it is the best national economy to produce a future supply. 

The white pine of the North, the yellow pine of the South, and the Douglas 
fir of the West are the finest timbers for structural and general use provided 
by nature for any nation on earth. Yet our knowledge of the remaining supply 
of these woods, their reproductive capacity, the industrial requirements for 
them, and the land areas which may best be devoted to their future production 
is out of date or nonexistent — chiefly the latter. 

These are the typical examples. They might just as truly be repeated with 
resi»ect to all the 40 species of commercially imi)ortant woods in the Ignited 
States and the hundreds of forest products of daily necessity in the life of the 
people. V/e don't know where we stand now. We must know if we are to 
tackle the problem of continuous fore.st production on an adequate scale and 
in an intelligent fashion. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ED. E. PARSONAGE, PRESIDENT ASSOCIATION OF WOOD-ITSING 

INDUSTRIES. 

In behalf of the interests I represent I want to urge the passage of this bill 
because it will prove the initial piece of legislation establishing a permanent 
national forestry policy. 

I believe that a vast amount of evidence will be given your committee by the 
lumber and wood-using industries of this country, to make it perfectly plain to 
our Congress, that even the most comprehensive legislation possible will be 
much in the nature of an eleventh-hour repentance. 

I am to speak specifically of section 5. This proposed bill has to do particu- 
larly with a comprehensive investigation to be made by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture in connection with proper methods for reforestation, also methods of 
cutting and utilizing timber. 

This section is, to my mind, a very important part of the bill, inasmuch as 
the results of the investigation to be made during the next two or three years 
will form the real basis for our future National and State reforestation policies. 

A vast amount of lumber can be saved that now goes into the slab piles of 
sawmills all over the country. What is needed is adequate work of a compre- 
hensive chfiracter. and a practical point of contact between the lumber pro- 
ducer and the lumber user. It is high time that wasteful methods are discarded 
in the wood-using and wood-producing industries. Many of the wood-using 
industries who are now using plank from which the actuaf waste is in excess of 
35 per cent can be taught to use dimension stock of correct sizes provided the 
lumber mill operatives can be properly instructed in proper methods of sawing. 
In the past it has been easier to cut plank and discard or throw away the bal- 
;ince of the log with the exception of low-grade car stock, ties, etc. 

My argument is neither defense for the lumber producer or the wood-using 
manufacturer, but rather a plea for more economical utilization of our fast 
failing forests. 

I will now refer to a still more important part of section 5. namely, the pro- 
vision authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to study the effects of tax 
methods and protection on forest perpetuation ; devise tax laws designed to 
eno image the conservation and growing of timber, to cooperate with State 
agencies in the consideration of such plans. 

It is not my province at this time to even suggest further legislation such as 
will insure permanent supply of timber for posterity. 

Ho\Ap\er, it should be patent to everyone that of the original 822,000,000 acres 
of virgin forest in the United States, there is at present only one-sixth of that 
area remaining. One-half of our merchantable standing timber lies in the three 
Pacific Coast States, and over 60 per cent of the total is west of the Mississippi 
Valley. In addition, the Forestry Bureau figures that only one-flfth of the timber 
left in this country is hardwood, upon which so large a portion of our wood-using 
industries depend. 

Any reforestation legislation must necessarily provide for ways and means by 
which it will be commercially possible for individuals, corporations. States, or 
the National Government, individually or collectively, to hold forest land suffi- 
ciently long to grow merchantable timber. 



50 FORESTRY. 

Subsidies are promptly frowned upon in wiiatever way they may be presented. 
However, taxes may be reduced, withheld for periods, or canceled entirely. 
Other encouragement, financial and otherwise, may be necessary to make ade- 
quate reforestation a commercial possibility. 

Up to the present time if a sawmill were constructed at any given point for 
the specific purpose of sawing merchantable timber from a tract of, say, 10,000 
acres, the entire cost of the mill and all its sawmill buildings and equipment 
must be charged off in a period of, say, from 5 to 10 years. When the timber is 
cut off the tract the mill is abandoned. The public necessarily pays the bill in 
every thousand feet of lumber that is marketed from this mill. 

Constructive legislation should be framed as quickly as possible, such as will 
enable this millowner to cut ]n*ogressively, with the idea of recutting in another 
10 years, or by adding to his tract with the idea of continvious operations. 

It may be even reasonable at this time to present the idea that legislation 
may be necessary in the near future to encourage or force economical cutting 
of timber, especially if national or State aid be available for insuring perma- 
nent reforestation, 

I feel, gentlemen, that we are figuratively taking a very small bite of the 
apple in passing this initial piece of constructive reforestation legislation. 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT ON SECTION 5 FILED BY A. B. GEEELEY. 

Losses in manufacture make it necessary to cut in the forest four. times the 
material finally utilized. Only a small part of the latter is used with intelli- 
gent reference to its properties. The object of forest products' research is to 
put this enormous waste to economic use, to make one tree do the work of four, 
and to improve the inefficient rule-of-thumb methods now employed in utilizing 
timber. The place of forest products research in a national forestry program 
is to make the timber left and that grown go as far and serve as effectively as 
possible. Research includes studies of the mechanical, physical, and chemical 
properties of the various species ; manufacturing processes to improve efliciency 
and utilization ; new processes to utilize waste; and educational and cooperative 
assistance in the application of x-esults. Investigations are conducted mainly 
at the Forest Products Laboratory. 

The total use of wood where strength is a factor is very large — .$200,000,000 
annually for the building trades alone. Knowledge of the mechanical proper- 
ties of timber and of defects on these properties is essential to efficient utiliza- 
tion in building construction. Five hundred thousand strength tests on 125 
species have been made to supply this knowledge. Such results are already 
applied on approximately one-tenth of the structural timber used. The data 
forms the basis for structural timber-grading rules for southern pine and 
Douglas fir with a 20 per cent increase in allowable working stresses. It has 
had, and will continue to have, a wide application in many wood-using indus- 
ties in the selection of suitable substitutes for woods no longer available. 

Supplemented by special tests, data on strength properties liave a wide 
application on many wood products, such as containers. Investigations on con- 
tainers for some 40 commodities have in each case saved from 12 to 30 per 
cent in lumber and shipping space and produced a cheaper, more serviceable 
product. The adoption of improved specifications by several large associations 
has saved at least $1,000,000 annually. A shippers' association using annually 
150,000,000 boxes for canned goods alone reports that fi'om past research 
90,000,000 of their boxes can be made more efficient with less lumber, a saving, 
at 1 cent a box, of ,$900,000. 

Economies in packing and shipping are important to all manufacturers, 
shippers, dealers, and most of all to the public. Much of the $55,000,000 claims 
bills paid by the railroads in 1918 for goods damaged and lost in shipment is 
attributable to faulty containers. Additional investigations are therefore 
urgently needed on the design and construction of a wide range of representa- 
tive classes of wooden, fiber, and veneer boxes and crates, and on fundamental 
relationships between container construction and contents. 

New fields of work on mechanical properties include tests of large columns 
on which practically nothing is known, of steam bending, now responsible for 
excessive losses of high-grade material, effect on strength of various wood- 
preservative processes, woodworking properties, and the relationship between 
growing conditions and strength properties. More efficient and standardized 
lumber and timber grades are urgently needed in the interest of both consumer 
and producer. In short, investigations on the mechanical properties of wood 
and wooden products must eventually provide data that will enable wooden 



f 



FORESTRY. 51 

buildings, bridges, spokes, boxes, barrels, and such products to be designed and 
constructed most efficiently from properly selected wood. 

A practically untouched field deals with methods of reducing waste or utiliz- 
ing the smaller sizes, of which our future forest production must largely con- 
sist. The requirements of industries utilizing small sizes must be studied 
primarily from the standpoint of supplying their raw material from the waste 
of industries using large sizes. Built-up and laminated construction can be 
developed by research to utilize an immense amount of material of small size 
and low grade now either wasted or of little value, and depends upon changed 
processes and industrial standards and a strong, durable, waterproof glue or 
other means of fastening. The standardization of dimension stock sizes and 
their cutting direct from the log rather than first into lumber promises a large 
reduction of waste. For example, the manufacture of hickory handles some- 
times requires 2 tons of lumber for 400 pounds of handles, and furniture manu- 
facture wastes from 40 to 60 per cent of its lumber. These are merely examples 
of numerous prol)lems whose solution can be made to revolutionize present 
conceptions of utilizing small sizes and waste. 

Improved methods of drying developed on 35 woods, including Douglas fir, 
southern pine, spruce, gum, and many oaks are designed to reduce the largely 
unnecessary annual $50,000,000 loss in the seasoning of lumber, every dollar 
of which is an added production cost and the waste an additional drain on our 
forest resources. Further improvement of methods can come only through the 
determination of the limitations and ixissibilities of existing dry kilns and 
their improvement, a wider knowledge of essential drying conditions for all 
species, and research into the fundaijiental natural laws which govern sea- 
soning. 

The deca.y of railroad ties, mine timbers, poles, posts, piling, bridge material, 
and that used in exposed conditions is a drain upon the forests equal to forest 
fires. Forest Service investigations have materially assisted in the present 
extensive use of preservatives ; established the susceptibility of 46 species 
to several treatments : shown how to improve several processes ; established 
methods of analyzing creosote and of detecting adulterants ; established some 
of the principles affecting time and cost of treatment ; and reduced costs at 
least one-half cent per cubic foot for all material treated, or .$625,000 annually. 
Further reduction of decay requires work to cheapen processes to encourage 
wider application of preservative treatment, to develop better methods for 
refractory timbers, to develop a piling preservative and a cheap odorless pre- 
servative suitable for such structures as houses which will take paint and 
can be supplied in quantity. A fire retardant and better forms of construction 
must be developed to reduce the largely unnecessary fire losses of $200,000,000 
or more annually, and much work must be done on paints, varnishes, and 
coatings. 

Chemical utilization offers possibly the greatest opportunity to utilize waste 
and low-grade material. The rapidly growing pulp industry alone uses over 
5,000,000 cords of wood. Because of the growing scarcity of pulp woods, 
tests whiclT determined the suitability of 23 woods for ground and 48 for soda, 
sulphate, and sulphite pulp are increasingly valuable. Additional tests are 
attempting modifications of the processes, as for example, of the sulphate 
process to utilize resinous conifers, sucli as the southern pine, for book and high- 
grade print paper. Studies to reduce a $5,000,000 pulp decay and a greater 
pulp-wood decay loss are promising. Within the year cotton linters formerly 
wasted have been shown satisfactory for pulp, and an annual commercial- 
plant capacity of 100.000 tons is the result. The 2,000,000 cords of wood which 
disappears in manufacturing chemical pulp can be saved only through research. 
If the resin question can be solved, the number of woods suitable for news- 
print can be increased by several common, widely distributed pines, with far- 
reaching economic consequences to the press, the pulp and paper industry, and 
timber production. The utilization of pulp for fiber products, amazing ali'ead^v 
in variety, has practically limitless possibilities through research. 

Wood-distillation tests have determined the suitability of five new woods 
and show how to increase commercial yields of wood alcohol and acetic acid 
15 per cent without increasing costs. Recent investigations give a further 
increase of 50 per cent in wood-alcohol production. Wood alcohol is secured 
only by wood distillation, and is essential in many chemical industries. 
Research on ethyl alcohol has reduced operating costs 9 cents per gallon at the 
larger of our two commercial plants, which produce several million gallons a 
year, and was an important factor in its success. Important in the utiliza- 



52 FORESTRY. 

tion of mill waste, this process offers also one possible substitute for gasoline 
if by research costs can be reduced and manufacture made possible at small 
plants. Progress in all chemical utilization will depend largely upon knowledge 
of fundamental wood chemistry. Such research, now hardly begun, promises- 
.'•:weeping improvements in widely diversified chemical wood industries. 

While necessary to determine facts by research it is important that such 
facts be used. This requires publication, contact with industries, and commer- 
cial demonstrations. A staff sufficiently large to provide such service is neces- 
sary for the maximum application of results. 

Tlie annual value of all of the products made from wood in tbe United 
States amounts to several billion dollars. The industries involved in this 
production, in labor employed and in capital invested, ranks in the aggregate 
with our leading industries. These industries, as well as the public, all of 
which is directly or indirectly concerned, are vitally interested in a continuous 
wood supply. Forest products investigations can assist materially in making 
the supply continuous by showing how to reduce the present waste of three- 
fourths of every tree cut and to get the maximum value out of the one-fourth 
used. Such research can make our remaining supplies go further and reduce 
the amounts of timl)er we shall otherwise have to grow to meet requirement. 
It is hardly less essential to utilize our timber well than to grow it. This is 
the function of forest-products' research in national forestry. An aimual allot- 
ment of $500,000 is none too large for the most urgent and pressing work. 

STATEMENT OF MR. .J. RANDALL WIL1.I.\MS, .TR., CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY,, 
NATIONAL WHOLESALE LLTMIJER DEALERS' ASSOCIATION. 

I do not own any timber in the United States nor am I interested financially 
in any niauufacturing or lumber company in the United States. 

I feel that I am exceptionally fortunate in Iteing able to be here as I am 
in a position to express to you an unbiased opinion on this subject — ^my ex- 
perience having brought me in close touch, on the one hand, with the lumber 
manufacturer, and on the other with the consumer and general public. View- 
ing this question with the idea of taking care of the requirements of our 
children and our children's children so far as their supply of timber is con- 
cerned. 

Let us divide the public into two classes : First, those owning timlier and 
producing lumber; second, those consuming the product and the general public. 
While both of these classes are in a more or less dormant condition in regards 
to a national-forest policy, they show signs of an early awakening, and, like 
the Quaker, who changes his belief, often becoming very high church, the 
average person of the latter class on taking up the question is liable to become 
radical iu his ideas, condemning at once the lumber manufacturer for cutting 
down the trees, which, as a matter of fact, is a marketable product, the de- 
mand for which is caused by the self-same public person who is condemning 
the lumberman. 

In making legislation governing the cutting of timber, while the majority 
rule, they should not overlook the fact that the lumber manufacturer is the 
one who has had the real practical experience, and his difficulties should be 
considered. Criticism should be constructive and not destructive. To develop 
a system of cutting timber, which will get the lumberman's interest, cooper- 
ation, and support, are fundamental and not radical Federal laws. 

The fundamental reasons for cutting timber are demand for the product, 
business enterprise, development, maturity of crop, time limit in which to cut 
in accordance with the purchaser's contract, and excessive taxes on standing 
timber, all of which have a distinct bearing on the manner in which the timber 
is cut. 

There are two classes of timber and cut-over lands : The large holdings and 
tracts, where the large and permanent mills are located, and the smaller and 
scattered tracts developed by the portable mills. The former are better able 
and are developing reforestation and fire protection, while with the latter this 
is practically impossible. They both need Federal and State support. 

The cut-over lands may be divided into two classes : That suitable for agri- 
culture and that suitable for reforestation. The first is quick to produce and 
has a market, the second needs State and Federal help, either by their taking 
over the land or giving the owner assistance. 

The majority of the States have little or no timber and are dependent upon 
the timber-producing States, and the latter owe a responsibility to the former 



FOEESTKY. 53 

and should be made to look after and carry at least half the burden, getting 
an equivalent support from the Federal Government. State control, in coopera- 
tion with the landowner and Federal Government, will develop a greater inter- 
est in the State, and e()operuti<»n not only of tlie landowner and lumber manu- 
facturer but of the people in that State in which the timber and land is located. 
It places on them a greater moral responsibility for the care and development 
of the same. 

STATEMENT ON SECTION 9 BY E. A. SHERMAN, ASSOCIATE FORESTER, FOREST SERVICE. 

The purpose of section 9 of H. R. 15327 is to increase the value and produc- 
tiveness of the existing national forests. It proposes to do this by a method 
very similar to the methods authorized in section 8 of the same measure. The 
principal difference is that in section 8 the timber-producing lands are to be 
acquired by purchase ; in section 9 they are to be acquired by barter. 

Within the existing national forests there was on June 30, 1920. a total of 
24,267,723 acres of land which did not belong to the United States Government 
and a total of 156,032.053 acres which did belong to the United States Govern- 
ment. A little less than 87 per cent was in Government ownership, and a little 
more than 13 per cent was in adverse possession. This is due to the fact that 
before the forests were created all the lands within their boundaries were open 
to acquisition under the various public-land laws, resulting in much of the best 
land being taken. The relative importance of the privately owned land within 
the forest is greater than the 13 per cent would indicate, for the reason that 
much of this area was carefully selected with an eye to strategic control. The 
situation varies widely on dilTerent forests. Some forests are almost entirely 
solid areas of Government land ; others are more than 50 per cent in private 
ownership. In each of 78 different forests there are over 100,000 acres of pri- 
vately owned land, at least 90 per cent of which is chiefly valuable for timber 
production and watershed protection. Such privately owned land increases the 
cost of administration, multiplies the difficulties of forest management, and is 
a permanent fire menace to the timber upon adjoining national forest land. 

The work and expense of providing for proper brush disposal on timber-sale 
areas on national forest land may be completely nullified by the misuse of 
adjoining land, such as neglect in disposing of slash. Usually the interests of 
the Government and the interests of intermingled private holdings are not 
identical. The private owner aims at the maximum immediate financial re- 
turn; the Government's object is permanent, beneficial use. But intermingled 
land in a given logging unit or unit of forest management must be handled 
as a unit and with a single purpose or object in view — to secure the best results 
either in financial returns or public service. This section makes it possible 
for the Government and the private owner to_ each consolidate its holdings so 
that each is free to secure the full benefits contemplated by complete owner- 
ship. This in itself is exceedingly desirable and fully warranted from the 
broad standpoint of public interest. 

In the first place this section should not be confused with the iniquitous 
" lieu land " law. That law gave the owner of private land rights of selection 
and gave the Government's officers neither power nor discretion to protect the 
public against inequitable selections. This measure confers no rights upon 
the private owners, but does give the Secretary of Agriculture power and dis- 
cretion whereby the public interests will be advanced, the national forests 
extended, and their value and productiveness increased. 

This section has ample precedent in existing laws. Seven different acts 
passed by Congress include substantially these provisions, applicable generally 
to seven different national forests. In addition Congress has at different times 
given specific authority for a considerable number of s-pecific exchanges of the 
kind contemplated by this section. The only feature in this section for which 
there is not already existing precedent in our statutes is the certificate fea- 
ture, which is designed to simplify exchanges by elinnnating a proportion of 
the uncertainties incident to barter. 

The beneficial results of this section if enacted into law would extend far 
beyond the mere advantages of consolidation. It would be in fact an actual 
and effective permanent curative instrument in dealing with existing aliena- 
tions. Excepting as to the lands purchased under the Weeks law, only about 
1 per cent of our national forests consist of cut-over land. We have conse- 
quently a tremendous forest capital to draw upon. This section would enable 



54 FORESTRY. 

the Department of Agriculture to utilize a part of the forest capital in im- 
proving the national forest property as a whole, by acquiring, where this can 
be done at reasonable valuation, the intermingled forest lands which in ad- 
verse ownership threaten the security or affect the value of the publicly 
owned forests. Roughly speaking, it is estimated that about 19,000,000 acres 
out of the 24,000,000 acres in private ownership in the national forests are 
chiefly valuable for timber production and watershed protection. 

Some owners will wish to exchange land for land ; others will wish to ex- 
change land for timber. Eventually, however, in the long run it is believed 
that 1 acre of land can be secured in exchange for an average of not to exceed 
1,000 feet b. m. of standing timber. Based upon a total stand of 500,000,000,000 
feet of merchantable timber, it would require a little less than 4 per cent of 
our present stock of timber to foot the bill for purchasing this 19,000,000 acres 
of privately owned timberland in the national forests. In addition the present 
owners would necessarily require compensation for the value of the merchant- 
able timber now standing on their lands. This would be worked out in different 
ways to meet different conditions. In some places the private owner would be 
allowed to reserve the right to cut and remove the merchantable timber within 
a certain fixed period of years ; in other cases he would be given an equal value 
of national forest timber, which he would be required to cut and remove under 
proper silvicultural restrictions. In short, the entire area of privately owned 
timberland, distinct from the present stock of merchantable timber on the land, 
could be acquired at a timber cost no greater in volume than the average vol- 
ume growth which may reasonably be secui'ecl from the resulting consolidated 
national forests in a single year under adequate fire protection and regulated 
cutting. To acquire the private timber in addition will not reduce the total 
value of merchantable timber remaining in Government ownership, since in no 
case would the Government give a greater value than it would acquire. Such 
privately owned lands and their existing stocks of timber should certainly 
be acquired as rapidly as possible. Long-time plans of forest management are 
impossible unless this is done. 

The situation can not be met entirely by purchases under section 8 of this 
measure. Many owners who would not care to sell their timber holdings for cash 
would be willing to liquidate by means of a conservative lumbering operation 
made possible by a direct exchange. Section 9 supplements the appropriations 
of public money which would be made under section 8 by making the earning 
and growing capacity of the forests contribute to their consolidation and im- 
provement. In short, it simply empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to ap- 
ply good business methods in the management of our public timberlands. 

The boundary lines of many of the national forests were determined origi- 
nally largely by land ownership instead of being drawn to embrace natural- 
forest units. In the process of consolidation or acquisition by exchange under 
this section it will sometimes be necessary and desirable to acquire lands 
which are not actually embraced within the technical or legal limit of the na- 
tional forests. As this section is worded, this can be done and the forest units 
rounded out to embrace the adjoining rough timberlands, which under reason- 
able plans of forest management should be added to the present Federal units. 
The total area which, by the process of exchange, might thus be added to the 
national forests is roughly estimated at 5,000,000 acres. 

I desire particularly to call the committee's attention to the fact that this 
is a class of work which is already under way and which has justified itself 
by satisfactory results. Section 9 would merely extend to all the national forests 
provisions which in greater or less extent have already been extended to seven 
specific forests. In this connection your attention is called to the fact that 
during the present session of Congress a total of 44 individual land exchange 
bills have been introduced in the House and Senate. Of this number 5 have 
been enacted into law. Thirty-nine measures are now pending, including H. R. 
9539, a general measure similar to section 9, which measure has been intro- 
duced by the chairman of the Public Lands Committee. Judging by the known 
favorable attitude of many members of that committee, its formal approval 
is expected. Its enactment into law would place in the hands of the Secretary 
of Agriculture a most potent means for increasing the permanent usefulness 
and value of the national forests. As such it is naturally of great importance 
to your committee and forms a necessary part of any complete national-forest 
program. 



FORESTRY. 55 

STATEMENT ON SECTION OF H. R. 15327, BY E. E. CARTER, ASSISTANT FORESTER, 

FOREST SERVICE. 

Section G makes provision for a substantial increase in the worlv of artificial 
reforestation on the national forests. This means the establishment of a 
timber crop by the Federal Government on its own lands which have been set 
aside for the production of timber to meet tlie needs and necessities of citizens 
of the United States. The chief object for which the national forests have been 
created is to grow timber. Where it is necessary to plant trees in order to 
start a timber crop, the exi^ense of doing so must be incurred if this object 
is to be accomplished. The planting of denuded national-forest lands also fur- 
nishes demonstrations of how unproductive lands in other ownerships may be 
made productive. 

Planting on the national forests is necessary almost solely where repeated 
forest fires have destroyed all possibility of securing a new stand of timber 
from naturally distributed seed. Only in the most exceptional places does 
any forester advocate the planthig of lands which can reseed naturally, and 
then only for the purpose of starting a crop of the best and most useful trees 
instead of accepting the stand of relatively inferior kinds which, under some 
circumstances, take possession of the ground. On the national forests there 
are millions of acres which were burned over at one time or another, chiefly 
before the forests were put under administration, and which are reseeding 
naturally. Such lands are not being and would not be planted by the Forest 
Service, since to do so would be an unnecessary expenditure and consequently 
a waste of money. There are, however, at least 1,500,000 acres of land which 
have been burned so hard by repeated fires that no new stand of trees is 
coming in. On these lands planting is necessary. Every year these lands 
remain idle there is a loss in production of at least 500,000,000 board feet of 
timber for which it is known the country will be in dire need. 

In addition there is one national forest, the Nebraska, of about 200,000 acres, 
which was practically all treeless sand hills. This forest is being planted 
successfully. Local supplies of rough construction lumber, posts, and other 
wood used on farms can be furnished to the people of a State which has 
practically no natural forests. 

Since the organization of the forest service .$1,121,946.10 has been spent iu 
planting or sowing unproductive lands, mostly old burns. The total area 
actually reforested is about 100,000 acres, or less than 10 per cent of the total 
area needing it. The work is now going forward at the rate of from 6,000 to 
9,000 acres a year, with' an annual appropriation of $125,000. The Department 
nf Agriculture has felt so keely the necessity for increasing the appropriation 
for fire protection that it has refrained from asking for a large increase in 
the planting appropriation in order that there might be no misunderstanding in 
the minds of the Members of Congress that it considered fire protection as the 
first essential. The planting fund was even reduced during the war on the 
basis of curtailing work of betterments or improvements in the face of a labor 
shortage. It has not been restored to its prewar sum of $165,000. 

Denuded land can be reforested, as is shown by the current operations on the 
national forests, at a cost of from $5 per acre in the Lake States to $15 per 
acre for good-sized operations in Idaho or Oregon. The average cost for the 
1,500.000 acres would be about $10 per acre. An appropriation of a million 
dollars a year would mean that the area needing planting would be restored to 
productivity at the rate of 100,000 acres a year. The more favorable sites, 
•nhich could be reforested the most cheaply, would be undertaken first, so that 
the rate of gain for the first few years would be higher. 

In many cases it is possible to forecast, even on the basis of present stump- 
age values, a direct financial return on this investment, ^^'ith the increases in 
stumpage value, which are certain to occur with the rapid diminution of the 
amount of standing timber in the country, the restoration of practically all 
these idle lands to a condition of productivity will be justified as a business 
undertaking. More important, however, is the creation of additional sources 
of supply of needed wood material for the country. 

Once a timber crop is established, future crops can be secured by natural 
seeding. Planting assures not only the returns from the crop planted, but also 
the permanent production of timber on the land as an additional return. 

To reforest the idle lands in national forests at the rate of about 7 per cent 
annually, as part of a national program of forestry, is a project which should 



56 FORESTRY. 

not l)e delayed. Its importance has not l)een emphasized in the past, because 
no general planting program should be undertaken until there is reasonable 
assurance against heavy losses from tires. As part of a national program 
which places better fire protection first, it is timely and an essential part of the 
whole. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. AYKES, FOKESTER OF THE SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF 
NEW HAMPSHIRE FORESTS. 

High prices for all wood material, due to the growing scarcity of timber 
throughout the land, is reacting seriously in the White Mountalrijs. Felling 
opei-ations proceed with a rapidity unknown before, except uiX)n the limited 
arci'.s already acquired by the Government. Softwood timber in the valleys 
thnnighout tlie mountain is completely gone. This comprised tlie great bulk 
of timber that originally clothed this region. It is only timber on the high 
slope that remains. 

The high slopes now are stripped of botli softwood and hardwood — every- 
thing. In a single day 3,000 men, armed with every invention that Yankee 
ingenuity can devise, strip the steep slopes, that can not be recovered to forest, 
of value in centuries. We are using precisely the metliods of the Chinese people 
in stripping their mountains clean of every kind of wood material, encouraging 
fire and erosion and consequent floods, with this difference: That the Chinese 
took 150 years to do what we are accomplishing in 25 years. 

Every great river in New England rises in the central mountain region of 
New Hampsliire and Maine, except the Penobscot ; and these rivers affect every 
State in New England except Rhode Island. The Federal Government has 
acquired only 46 per cent of the land that the Federal engineers marked out 10- 
years ago as necessary to control stream flow from these great watersheds. 
On the remainder the dance of death proceeds merrily. 

Present methods of cutting are quite different from those of 10 years ago, 
when timber was more plentiful and prices were hiwer. Mountain hardwood 
had no value then ; now everything is taken. The smallest saplings are cut 
t(. get them out of the way of the larger logs, leaving a slash that invites Are. 
Two large fires, each covering several hundred acres, occurred last fall when 
tlie leaves were dry. These fires consumed not only the debris after lumber- 
ing but also the soil itself, which in the mountains is of vegetable origin ; after 
fire new growtli is postponed for centuries and in some places forever. 

ThuS', within a single generation we have gone far toward the despoliation 
of a region wliich is the mother of great rivers that affect more manufacturing 
enterprises than any other group of streams of like character in the whole 
world. The delay of a single day is detrimental, and the delay of one year 
brings a loss that is irreparable. In a year logging operations, fire, and 
erosion will have gone far on these steep slopes toward the permanent disa- 
bility of the streams. 

I speak as a forester who has been intimately familiar with the AVhite 
Mountains for 20 years. In the late war the Wliite ]Mountains supplied a 
goodly amount of material for cantonments, ammunition boxes, and aeroplane 
stock. In any future emergency they will be unable to do so except from the 
areas that have been acquired by the Government. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. HALL, OF CHICAGO, ILL. 

Although not at present a member of the Forest Service, I was in that organi- 
zation for 20 years and from 1911 to 1918 had charge of the purchase of lands- 
in the Soutliern Appalachians and the White Mountains. On account of my 
connection with that work I have been asked to present a statement to the- 
committee on sections 7 and 8 of the Suell bill. 

The two major proposals of the pending bill are the maintaining of private 
timl)orhinds in productive condition and the consolidation, rounding out, and 
extension of the National Forests. It is to the second of these that I now ask 
the attention of the committee. It is, in fact, to that part of this proposal that 
has to do with an appropriation for further purchases of lands for national 
forests, under the act of March 1, 1911. 

Section 7 of the pending bill proposes an appropriation of $10,000,000 a year 
for five years. Section 8 makes tlie appropriation applicable to lands more suit- 
able to timber growing than to other purposes, in any part of the United States;. 



FORESTRY. 57 

National forests are the one outstanding acliievement in forestry tlius far 
made in the United States. It is now 30 years since the hiw authorizing them 
was passed. In that time lands have been segregated out of the public domain 
to the area of 135,000,000 acres and set aside permanently for forest production. 
'They are the wild, remote, mountainous lands of the Western States, for the 
most part, but notwithstanding their wild, inaccessible, and undeveloped condi- 
tion they contain 500,000,0(.H1,000 feet of timber whi-'h is becoming valuable as 
the supplies elsewhere become exhausted, and as they are opened up by roads, 
trails, and telephones. 

Ten years ago this connnittee favorably reported and Congz'ess passed an act 
authorizing the establishment of national forests on the headwaters of important 
navigable streams and appropriated $11,000,000 for the purchase of lands for 
this purpose. The appropriation was made on the basis of a program which 
proposed he purchase of 5,000,000 acres in the southern Appalachian Mountains 
and 1,000,000 acres in the White Mountains, for it was generally understood 
that the program was mainly to be carried out in those two regions. Some addi- 
tional appropriations have been made and there has now been expended about 
$11,500,000. There has been purchased or contracted for 1,800,000 acres at an 
average acreage price of $5.25. or if the cost of ex;uninations, timber cruises, 
land surveys, title work and c'.ei'k hire be considered, the average acreage price 
has been $6.29 per a -re. The original program is therefore 30 per cent carried 
out and the cost has been, in lound numbers, $11,5(X>,000. 

Have there been any substantial results fi-om these expenditures? It will 
be good news to members of the committee to know that these lands to-day ap- 
pear to be worth more than double their cost. If to the original expenditures 
for purchase there be added all subsequent expenditures for protection and 
administration and a balance sheet be drawn as of this date, the undertaking 
will be shown to have been better than an 8 per cent investment for the United 
States. 

The undertaking has been more than a good investment. On lands where 
fires have run uncheckeVl for 150 years fires have now been very generally 
stopped. Over considerable areas careful timber cutting has been done with a 
result that very fine stands of young trees have come up and are growing fast. 
They promise well for the future. 

But perhaps the most wholesome and satisfactory result from these forests 
has been their influence on the people of the region and on the holders of 
adjacent timber properties. They have become strong centers of fire protection 
and of better methods of handlilig timber lands. Their influence has grown 
until to-day it is a powerful force in the education of the people of the region 
in the right handling of their timber lands. In this they have merely dupli- 
cated the results from the National Forests of the West. To-day no other 
regions of the country are so warmly supporting the forestry legislation now 
before this committee as the regions which hold the rational forests. 

This experience will, I believe, when carefully considered by the committee, be 
convincing that whatever forestry program is adopted must be built around 
the national forests. They must be the framework of the structure. Upon 
this point there is, I believe, no considerable difference of view among foresters 
or among those who have studied the problem at all deeply. 

Now, if the national forests are to become the mainstay of our forest policy, 
then national forests must be estnblished in all the forest regions. The 
Weeks law program must be absorbed into a program that will cover 
more completely the Eastern States and be extended into the Lake States, 
the southern pine States, and the Ozark region. We must, if it accords with 
the fundamental law of the land to do so. get away from the restriction that 
now limits Pe<leral purchase of timber lands to the watersheds of navigable 
streams. 

Government forests should be so located in any and all forest regions as to 
be of maximum influence upon surrounding private timber lauds, and they 
must be large enough to be economical units of administration. They should 
be built up out of the 320,000,000 acres of cut-over timber lands, and they should 
be adjusted to and correlated with such forests as the States may elect to 
establish. The Federal Government in this policy should never allow its plans 
to conflict with those of the States. The States always should have the 
right of way. 

Opinions may differ as to how far it ^^■ill be necessary for the Govenuuent to 
go in acquiring lands for forest purposes. That is a question that can not ])e 



58 FORESTRY. 

and does not need to be answered now. It will depend largely on whether a 
successful way can be found to induce or require the private owner of timber- 
land to practice forestry. In any case, national forests of appropriate size and 
strategically located must be established in all forest regions. 

Speaking for myself only, but as one who has given much tliought to the matter 
during the past 20 years, I would like to suggest to the committee that the 
Government should without delay enter upon a program of acquiring at least 
1,000,000 acres a year. Even at that rate it will, in my judgment, take many 
years to work the program out. It does not seem to me to be necessary to pay 
cash for all this land. A large part of it — possibly as much as 40 per cent — 
should be acquired in the West, and should be secured in exchange for national 
forest timber, as proposed in section 9 of the bill now before the connnittee. 

Finally, this is not a matter that can be indefinitely postponed. The cost of 
postponement climbs so fast that that course repels the thinking mind. AVe 
have already 81,000,000 acres of cut-over land now reduced to barrenness that 
will have to be planted before trees will grow on it again. The cost of planting 
will be not less than $10 per acre, even in normal times. Every year the barren 
area increases, due to destructive logging and fires, by not less than two and 
one-half million acres, thus adding at least $25,000,000 annually to the total cost 
of the undertaking every year that we put it off. 



X 



itllif 

^ A4 ii 



i f 



>«, K 






i 1 , !;!1M < 






ii-Vt' 



f ^f if. 



'-Wit 



